Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Hospital Beds

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many additional beds he expects to secure for the National Health Service in North Wales by phasing out pay beds; and what representations he has received on this matter from individuals and organisations in North Wales.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): The use of 35 beds as pay beds has been authorised in the Clwyd and Gwynedd area health authority areas in North Wales. As these authorisations are withdrawn, the accommodation will become entirely available for NHS patients. Since the Goodman proposals were published my right hon. and learned Friend has received 11 repre-

sentations from organisations and individuals in North Wales.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the total absence of alternative facilities if this exiguous number of pay beds is further pared? Is he aware that there will also be a grievous loss of part-time consultants on which the National Health Service in North Wales very much depends?

Mr. Barry Jones: I cannot agree with the hon. Member when he talks about a grievous loss. The average occupancy of the 35 pay beds has been about 50 per cent. in recent years and the release of eight pay beds is not expected to affect significantly the amount of private practice.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: In view of the very low use made of pay beds in the whole of Wales, will the Minister meet the Welsh Committee of the Health Services Board as soon as it is established and suggest that it phases out all pay beds in Wales without further delay?

Mr. Barry Jones: I shall certainly consider the hon. Member's first suggestion. Throughout the whole of Wales, which has a population of 2½ million, there are 60 pay beds. That might help to put the situation in context.

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State Wales if he has had any recent discussions with the British Steel Corporation concerning future development plans.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): My Department maintains close contact with the British Steel Corporation on all matters affecting the steel industry in Wales.

Mr. Hughes: As the Llanwern works is now producing a lot of steel, does my right hon. and learned Friend not feel the time is now opportune to initiate discussions with the BSC with a view to completing the long-overdue iron ore terminal, which is very much part of the future success of this great works?

Mr. Morris: I am aware of the fight that my hon. Friend has put up for this project and for the Newport docks in general over many years. He will know that the primary responsibility for developments of this kind rests with the British Transport Docks Board, in consultation with the BSC. Ministerial responsibility rests with the Minister for Transport. I am sure that my hon. Friend was very pleased with the recent opening of the new access road, which will help Newport docks and for which he has fought very hard for a long time.

Mr. Geraint Howells: In view of the uneasiness in the steel industry in Wales, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be in favour of establishing a steel corporation for Wales once we have a Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Morris: I see no economic advantage in that kind of suggestion. At the end of March a new Welsh division of the BSC was established, and it has considerable autonomy.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the main complaint of steel workers in Wales is the grievous lack of communication between top management and workers in the Welsh plants? In the consideration of future development plans, will he ensure, through his right hon. Friend, that these communications are improved?

Mr. Morris: My right hon. Friend will know that as far as there is any Government responsibility under statute, it is my right hon. Friend's, but these are matters essentially within the province of the corporation itself.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In view of the importance of this matter to both Port Talbot and Shotton, and in view of the

continuing grave uncertainty about the future of Shotton, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when we are likely to have a statement on the matter?

Mr. Morris: No one is more aware than my hon. Friend and I of the need for a decision on a matter that is of fundamental importance to the steel industry and the country as a whole. A statement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Wigley: Given the labour relations that have existed within the steel industry in Wales, and as a new division has now been established, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the possibility of experimenting with much more direct employee control within the industry to give more industrial democracy within what is, after all, a State corporation?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member will know that that is not a matter for me. The industrial relations aspects are dealt with in the Act setting up the BSC. Perhaps the hon. Member will look at that and address his question to my right hon. Friend.

Joint Consultative Committees

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the liaison between area health authorities and local authorities in Wales through the joint consultative councils.

Mr. Barry Jones: In general, yes.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the Department of Health and Social Security in England has recently produced a consultative circular about joint care planning? Is it not time that the Welsh Office produced a similar circular, to ensure the joint financing of projects that will particularly benefit services to the mentally ill in Wales?

Mr. Barry Jones: The fact that the Department of Health and Social Security does something does not mean the Welsh Office must do it. We are considering the question of joint financing between area health authorities and the county councils in the development of personal social services, but my right hon. and learned Friend has not yet reached a decision. Any sensible proposals will


be looked at carefully, subject to the availability of finance.

Mr. Hooson: Has the Welsh Office considered the possibility of bringing the administration of health services under one of the elected authorities—either district or county councils—and leaving district hospitals under the Assembly? Does he agree that, instead of having social services under one council and health services under another, it would be very much better to have them both under one authority?

Mr. Barry Jones: I am always interested in such suggestions, but it seems that the Welsh Assembly will be in existence in a very few years, and the hon. and learned Gentleman may agree that at this moment the best thing would be not to reorganise the service again but to bear in mind the creation of the Assembly.

Welsh Language (Local Authorities)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to implement the recommendations of the Hughes Parry Report on the Welsh language with regard to its recommendations for the activities of local authorities.

Mr. John Morris: It is for local authorities to act on those recommendations which apply to them. It has been the consistent policy of successive Governments, and it is most certainly my policy, to encourage authorities to give a proper place to the Welsh language in their activities.

Mr. Wigley: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that certain councils, such as the Rhymney Valley Council and the Taff-Ely Council, have not only failed to respond in the language of correspondents but have refused to accept letters in the Welsh language? In these circumstances, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman send a circular to all councils in Wales drawing to their attention the recommendations of the Hughes Parry Report, if he cannot go further and direct them to abide by the spirit of the report?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman may know that Welsh Office Circular No. 82

was issued in 1969 by my predecessor, now Mr. Speaker, which made the position quite clear and left no doubt about one's hopes for what local authorities would do. It is a matter for them, after all. I hope that the observations that have been made today, with my answers, will be sufficient for local authorities and will indicate to them my hopes as regards their practice.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that in all parts of the House there is concern at the refusal of local authorities to accept letters in the Welsh language from Welshmen? Of course, it is a matter for the local authorities, but, as Members of Parliament, we always accept letters in the language in which they are written, and this must be a matter of real concern to all Welshmen.

Mr. Morris: I have made my position quite clear, as does the circular issued by the Welsh Office in 1969. I have nothing to add.

Water and Sewerage Charges

Mr. Roderick: the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals to make on the method of lection of water and sewerage charges.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): Water authorities are responsible for deciding the method of collecting charges for water services. I understand that the Welsh authority has no plans for extending present direct billing arrangements, which are confined to Clwyd and Anglesey.

Mr. Roderick: Is my hon. Friend aware that this idea that direct billing should take place throughout Wales is being floated, and will he be careful in considering whether to accept such advice? Is he further aware that the costs will be astronomical if we proceed along this path? Will he ensure, however, that local authorities can separately bill, within the same envelope, the amount of water rates? Members of the public are not fully aware of these costs. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that water charges become rebatable in the near future?

Mr. Alec Jones: We are certainly aware of the difficulties that have arisen, and I


take my hon. Friend's point. I have written to the Welsh National Water Development Authority asking it to pay particular attention to the overriding need to avoid any net increase in public expenditure as a consequence of the extension of direct billing.
With regard to the question of rebates, since the water charges are not part of the rating system they are not eligible for rate rebates.

Sir Raymond Gower: While appreciating the formidable amount of capital expenditure that the Welsh National Water Development Authority has to tackle because of the defects of the system in the past, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the present programme is not somewhat over-ambitious over the shorter period, and, therefore, the charges are likely to be upgraded too suddenly?

Mr. Alec Jones: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, the proposals for expenditure by the Welsh National Water Development Authority are, in the main, confined to items affecting the health of our people, housing, and industrial development. There are priority schemes, and these are going forward.

Mr. Grist: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that direct billing would make nonsense of charging on rateable values for domestic water rates?

Mr. Alec Jones: The minor extension that has taken place to give a uniform system in Clwyd does not accord with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The Welsh National Water Development Authority has said that its minor extension to give a uniform pattern throughout Clwyd is estimated to save £11,000 per annum.

Industrial Incentives

Mr. Fred Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received alleging the misuse by firms in Wales of the system of Government industrial incentives.

Mr. John Morris: I have received five such representations in recent months, all of which have been or are being investigated.

Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that very serious allegations have been made against firms in the Rhymney Valley by the Chairman

of the Welsh National Party and that these have received extensive Press publicity, although, apparently, the courage to name the firms publicly was absent?
Is the Secretary of State further aware of the damage that can result from creating a blanket kind of suspicion on firms showing willingness to come to Wales and bring employment prospects? Will the Secretary of State, therefore, cause to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons copies of the representations made to him, and will he expedite investigations, which I understand have been inaugurated by his hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Four questions are enough for anyone in a supplementary question.

Mr. Evans: I shall simply ask a fifth question, and then sit down

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his ration. Fair play.

Mr. Morris: Since I took over responsibility in Wales for assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act last July, I have received representations naming only three firms. I have no evidence of widespread misuse. In two cases no evidence was found to substantiate the allegations. The remaining case involves an allegation that falls within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, who is at present looking into the matter. I have nothing to add.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that details of the case referred to by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) have been submitted to himself and to the Minister of State, Department of Industry, and that that case is being investigated in detail? Therefore, the accusation by the hon. Member for Caerphilly against the Chairman of Plaid Cymru is unfounded.

Mr. Morris: I have no interest in the Chairman of Plaid Cymru, either to defend or to prosecute him. I have received representations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has received representations. Those cases which have been investigated have not been substantiated, and one is being investigated. In fairness to everybody concerned, it is right that the investigation should continue.

Industrial Training (Gwynedd)

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the provision of training and retraining facilities in Gwynedd.

Mr. John Morris: I have received representations from my right hon. Friend and from the North Wales branch of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions.

Mr. Hughes: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allocated substantial resources for industrial training and retraining, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that some of this money is spent in areas of high unemployment, such as Gwynedd? Will he press for the establishment of a suitable skillcentre in the area of Bangor, to meet the requirements of the population of the catchment area concerned?

Mr. Morris: My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) has led a consistent campaign on this matter. I am very concerned that there shall be adequate facilities. There are training facilities in North-West Wales in the further education centres and employment establishments, and I understand that 178 people are now being trained in a wide variety of trades at these establishments. My right hon. Friend has been campaigning with me and with others for something over and above what is already being done, and he has a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment tomorrow. My right hon. Friend is aware of the whole issue, and I am ensuring that the representations made to me at my meeting with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions in December are being placed before my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the case made out by the Gwynedd County Council for a skillcentre? Does he not think it wise to encourage the Welsh Development Agency to take an interest in this?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman will know, or should know, that this is a

matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Negotiations are taking place between the county council and the Training Services Agency. That matter is now being considered actively, in terms of what is proper to be done and what facilities are required, given the amount that they would have to cater for. Those are the current negotiations between the county council and the TSA.

M4

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the construction of the remaining stages of the M4.

Mr. Barry Jones: There are 27 miles already in use. Work is proceeding on a further 29.7 miles, which should be in use by the end of 1977. This will leave three sections to be completed—the two sections north of Cardiff and Bridgend, and the section between the Morriston and Port Talbot bypasses. A dual carriageway already exists between Morriston and Port Talbot.

Mr. Anderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his wisdom and political courage in giving priority to the motorway, which is the single most important contribution to industrial development in South Wales currently under development. However, will he say something about the Port Talbot-Morriston section—the Baglan-Lonlas part of the motorway—which appears to be the major missing section? When can we expect to have some further information about that?

Mr. Barry Jones: That depends on the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and the availability of funds. It is at an early stage of preparation. I can say that it has been necessary to seek the views of other bodies about these proposals. Until that process has been completed I cannot even say when the preferred route will be announced. However, to hearten my hon. Friend, who is a bonny fighter for the motorway for his city, I can tell the House that £100 million is being spent on the M4 on projects already started and planned, and the greater part of the motorway should be in existence by 1979.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend


consider the urgency of the need for improvements to other major highways? In particular, will be consider improving the roads from Swansea to Caernarvon and from Cardiff to Caernarvon in a way that would take an hour off the journey?

Mr. Barry Jones: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I restate the priority of the Welsh Office—namely, east-west communications. As soon as the M4 is largely completed, the greater part of our expenditure will be switched to North Wales.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread feeling that it is urgently important that there should be a link between this motorway and the airport at Rhoose? Will he give urgent consideration to a suitable interchange which can be reserved for that purpose?

Mr. Barry Jones: I can never deny the pleadings of the hon. Gentleman for his constituency, and especially for the important airport that he has mentioned. I should like to think about his suggestion. Perhaps we can correspond about it.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I agree that great progress has been made in South Wales to improve road communications, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that all the schemes that were prepared for Cardiganshire have been shelved? What is the Welsh Office to do for Mid-Wales?

Mr. Barry Jones: We never forget Mid-Wales, because my right hon. and learned Friend is from that area, and he instructs us not to forget it. The hon. Gentleman is in correspondence with me literally at this moment. I can quote chapter and verse the schemes that are going ahead in his part of the world.

Development Board for Rural Wales

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will name and list in the Official Report the principal existing financial provisions from which finance for the proposed Development Board for Rural Wales will be transferred, together with the amounts involved.

Mr. Alec Jones: I refer the hon. Gentleman to Clause 10 of the Bill and to its Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I anticipate that the board will be principally funded from financial pro-

visions for relevant activities of existing organisations in the area.

Mr. Edwards: Will the Minister confirm that under the Bill no additional funds are being provided for mid-Wales? Over how long a period will the £25 million be expected to last that is referred to in the papers he has mentioned? What are the main areas for expenditure?

Mr. Alec Jones: I think that the hon. Gentleman is anticipating the Second Reading debate on the Bill. I assure him that we shall be making a full statement about the functions of the board at an appropriate stage during the consideration of the Bill. We are anxious to ensure at the outset that the Board shall have funds commensurate with its functions

Mr. Roderick: Although the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) failed to give the Bill a welcome, I can tell my hon. Friend that there is an overwhelming welcome for it in my constituency. We look forward to its speedy implementation.

Mr. Alec Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The views that he has expressed are the views that have come to me through most of the consultations that he have had

Mr. Hooson: Many people in Mid-Wales welcome the Bill, but the Minister has not answered the question about funding. Is it not right that most of the funds will nowadays be administered in a different way, by different bodies? Is any additional sum to be contributed for the purpose of the Development Board for Rural Wales in Mid-Wales?

Mr. Alec Jones: We have published the Bill, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had read Clause 10 he would have seen that it says specifically that the financial allocation of £25 million may be increased, subject to order, to £40 million. I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to read Clause 10, as it explains in detail the point he has raised.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning his consultative paper on the Development Board for Rural Wales; and what reply he has given.

Mr. Alec Jones: Representations were received from 68 bodies and 10 meetings were held. In general, the Government's proposals have been given a wide measure of support.

Mr. Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the criticism that there is an overlap of functions between the board, the local authorities and the Welsh Development Agency? Will he take this opportunity of making it clear exactly what the board could do that the agency could not do?

Mr. Alec Jones: Yes, this criticism has been made. I think that when we met the various bodies concerned we were able to satisfy them that there need be no conflict between the agency and the board. We see the board principally concerning itself with industrial development and the associated infrastructure problems in that area of Wales

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Has the hon. Gentleman received representations about the fact that the board will have no power to intervene in the primary trade and industry in rural Wales, and that it will have no power to intervene in extractive industry or to aid agriculture?

Mr. Alec Jones: I confirm—this was clearly set out in the consultative document—that the board will not have powers to intervene in agriculture industries. That is because we believe that such decisions affecting agriculture must be within the framework of the common agricultural policy and the EEC's rules on national aid.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome that statement? Is he prepared to write into the Bill clauses that clarify the matter? At present the Bill does not exclude agriculture in any way.

Mr. Alec Jones: I am prepared to listen to and consider any amendment the hon. Gentleman may care to table. However, I wish he had spent a little more time on his homework and less time on the mischief-making in which he took part in the Western Mail last Saturday

Truancy

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps his Depart-

ment is taking to reduce the high level of truancy in Welsh secondary schools.

Mr. Barry Jones: I had extensive consultations with educational bodies in Wales following last year's report on absenteeism, and am now evaluating the results of measures being taken by local education authorities in Wales to combat this serious problem. I am also considering what further steps might be taken.

Mr. Grist: Is the Minister aware that many of us look upon this as a matter of some urgency? Is he further aware that the extraordinary level of truancy in schools results in levels of numeracy and literacy that are severe barriers to employment prospects for young people? Will he give a pledge that the Welsh Office is considering the matter with a sense of real urgency?

Mr. Barry Jones: That pledge can be given immediately, with conviction. However, the Department's rôle is to identify the problems and to suggest appropriate lines of action. Under existing legislation, the practical measures that can be taken in both these areas are the responsibility of the LEAs, the school governors, the head teachers and the staff.

Mr. Roderick: Before my hon. Friend comes to any conclusions on this matter, will he institute some form of inquiry into the effects of streaming on this problem, since streaming creates failures in our schools, and this might well have a long-term effect?

Mr. Barry Jones: I always listen with great seriousness to suggestions from my hon. Friend, because he is an expert in education. I shall bear his suggestion in mind. The change in the summer leaving date will remove one difficulty, since pupils will no longer be obliged to remain at school after completing external examinations.

Television (Welsh Language)

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the progress made in the matter of establishing a national television channel for Wales which will give the Welsh language pride of place.

Mr. John Morris: The Government are committed to introducing a fourth television service in Wales in which Welsh language programmes will be given priority. The practical considerations have been set out in the report of the Siberry Working Party, which this Government appointed. In current economic circumstances an immediate start has not been possible, but I have the matter fully under review

Mr. Evans: In view of the extensive and undeniable injury which English television is doing to the Welsh language and, therefore, to Welsh culture in Wales, especially among children and young people, and bearing in mind also that last year £8 million was spent on establishing a television channel in Germany for some thousands of British troops—that is, at much the same cost as would be required for establishing a Welsh channel—will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now give an early date for the establishment of a national Welsh channel that will broadcast Welsh language programmes at peak viewing hours?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows the whole situation regarding the demand in Wales from both Welsh-speaking Welshmen and non-Welsh-speaking Welshmen. I assure him that our economic situation made it impossible to implement what we recognise as a great demand in Wales. As I said, the matter is under review, and will be kept under review, and I hope that a favourable decision will be made. The hon. Gentleman will know also that there is not even unanimity among Welsh-speaking Welshmen regarding the need for this channel.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that many parts of Wales are unable to receive the present Welsh channels. Is he in a position to tell Welsh people in those areas when they will be able to receive the present Welsh channels?

Mr. Morris: That is why the Home Secretary made it abundantly clear in his announcement that priority in concentrating on the UHF coverage, which is so badly needed in many parts of Mid-Wales, would be maintained. That is consistent with the Crawford Committee's view of the matter—that this priority should not be lost in the whole examination of what money and resources are

available. I know of many parts in both Mid-Wales and North Wales where this must obviously be the paramount consideration.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Bearing in mind current economic difficulties, have the Government looked into the possibility of establishing a channel on a less costly basis than that envisaged in the Siberry Report?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman speaks with some authority in this matter—I say that with sincerity—but he will know that we set up the working party under Mr. Siberry, that evidence was heard from both television organisations, and that the whole situation was examined. I am sure that if it were possible to proceed on a less "gold-plated" basis—if that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind when he makes his criticism—that must have beeen one of the matters examined by the committee. The committee came to the conclusion that the proper kind of service would be the one that it contemplated. If there were evidence that for a smaller sum a worthwhile and acceptable service could be provided, I should be glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman any representations and expert advice that he could give, but, having had the advice of the working party, I doubt whether it can be done in such a way as to establish a worthwhile service.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

Subsidies

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will compare the total cost of industrial subsidies in 1974 and 1975; and what is his forecast of the figure for 1976.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): Expenditure on support to industry, at 1975 public expenditure survey prices and net of repayments, was £1,236 million in 1974–75 and £1,531 million in 1975–76. The forecast for 1976–77, including investment by the National Enterprise Board, is £1,453 million.

Mr. Jessel: As the 1975 figure of £1,530 million represents, for the average household, about £125 in taxation per year, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that subsidies to industry are going too


far, especially since these figures do not include sums for the Department of Energy and industries that it sponsors?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the capacity to pay tax depends upon the taxpayer's ability to earn income and, therefore, on the efficiency of industry. I am sure that he would not suggest that we were wrong to attempt to regenerate industry and to get new investment in order to build up new industries in the place of old.

British Leyland

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether his Department has agreed with the National Enterprise Board and British Leyland the improvements in productivity and industrial relations that the Prime Minister said must be achieved before further tranches of public money can be made available to British Leyland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): The confidential operating plans which British Leyland has agreed with the NEB for the current year include defined targets on many aspects of performance. But as my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) on 5th April, we should be judging whether there has been adequate improvement in productivity and industrial relations rather than applying an arithmetical formula.

Mr. Miller: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. We welcome his knowledge and contribution on these matters, but may I ask him what his reply meant? If the situation is to be judged overall, is there an overall bench mark that must be set, and is that to be made known to the House, so that we may form our own opinion on whether the objectives are being met?

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, but, much as I hate to disappoint him, I cannot give him some primitive touchstone by which he may test the performance of British Leyland when the time comes for decisions to be made. As my right hon. Friend said on 5th April, there is no conveniently simple arithmetical formula available to us. In response to his last point, I should tell the hon. Gentleman

that when the National Enterprise Board has made its report and the Government have announced their decision, it will, of course, be brought before the House.

Mr. Robinson: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his appointment. Will he take it that, contrary to what Opposition Members may think, and contrary to the sustained barrage of cirticism directed at British Leyland, considerable progress is being made with regard to both manpower productivity and reorganisation in the corporation? Does he agree that one of the biggest dangers to progress in the corporation is the uncertainty among both management and workers on the shop floor, and that one step that could be taken to remove that uncertainty would be immediately to release the funds required for the prospective development programmes of the corporation, which would also provide a much-needed stimulus to the machine tool industry as well?

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to my hon. Friend also for his kind words. I know that he speaks with great expertise in these matters. I must tell him that the conditions for the release of the next stage of public finance will be the National Enterprise Board's and the Government's satisfaction that there has been adequate progress in achieving higher productivity and better industrial relations.

Mr. Tom King: How are those who work at British Leyland supposed to be able to reach the objectives when nobody will tell them what the objectives are? The hon. Gentleman says that there is no convenient arithmetical formula. Has he not read the CPRS Report, which includes just such a proposal for a formula? Do the Government accept that?

Mr. Huckfield: I am not sure how far the hon. Gentleman understands the participation machinery in British Leyland. He ought to realise that management has discussed specific production targets with the work force through the new participation machinery.

Government Aid

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what help the Government give generally in helping prosperous


firms to expand so as to increase employment facilities in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alan Williams: The most important incentives for increasing investment are the 100 per cent. first-year tax allowance for expenditure on plant and machinery, available throughout the country, and, in the assisted areas, the regional development grant. A wide range of other instruments, including selective financial assistance, are also available for increasing investment and job opportunities.

Mr. Hooson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the surest ways of reducing unemployment is to help those industries which are expanding and prosperous? Has he had a survey conducted in the Department to discover how many British firms have expanded abroad in recent years—firms that could have expanded here but have expanded abroad because they have been given special help by Governments in, say, France and Holland to do so?

Mr. Williams: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we are carrying out a series of sectoral examinations of our industry in conjunction with the NEDC, and these will help us to identify problems where they exist over a wide range of British industry. We also have the accelerated investment scheme, which is being used to bring forward investment in what is still a trough situation. This is proving to be a very worthwhile venture on the Government's part and is giving returns of about 7 to 1 in terms of investment in relation to Government expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Scotland

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service jobs are based in Scotland.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): As I advised my hon. Friend on 23rd February, there are at present 66,000 civil servants in Scotland.

Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the dispersal of jobs such as that now taking place in the Ministry of Overseas Development to areas of high

unemployment like West-Central Scotland is a valuable contribution towards easing the unemployment situation in such areas? Will he give an assurance that, despite rumours and threats of staffing cuts in the Civil Service, the dispersal of jobs will be extended?

Mr. Morris: The Government take seriously their commitment on the dispersal of jobs.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the real concern in Scotland about the continued delays in the programme for transferring 10,000 Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office jobs to Scotland? May we have an assurance that the transfer will take place and that the dates will be adhered to? When shall we have news of the decision on the contract for the building of offices in St. Enoch Square, Glasgow?

Mr. Morris: We have made considerable progress in the detailed planning for the dispersal of Ministry of Defence jobs to Glasgow. I can give a specific assurance that the Government seek to honour their commitments on dispersal for the years 1982–84.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Is the Minister aware that from the Questions that I have tabled and the answers I have received it is obvious that the North-West Region has done badly in the dispersal of jobs?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question is about Scotland.

Mr. McGuire: May I ask the Minister to bear in mind the real need for the Merseyside area to have jobs allocated to it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not fair. Hon. Members must put down their own Questions if they wish to ask about other areas.

Mr. Buchan: Is it not the case, Mr. Speaker, that if a Question is asked about dispersal to one part of the country it is also valid to consider its effect on other areas?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to challenge me, may I remind him that the Question is about how many Civil Service jobs are being dispersed to Scotland. It is clear that if we are to have any order in the House we must try


to make questions relate to the Order Paper.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister agree that one of the difficulties that we face is the fear amongst civil servants in England caused by the noise being made by the party that is fighting for Scottish independence? Will the Minister say how many accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank, which employs 5,000 civil servants, are Scottish and how many are English?

Mr. Morris: Questions relating to the Post Office should be put to the Secretary of State for Industry.

Civil Servants

Mr. Jessel: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are at present employed.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: At 1st January 1976 there were 745,120 civil servants in post. The comparable figure for 1st April 1976 should be available later this month.

Mr. Jessel: As that figure represents an increase, since October 1974, of 58,000 in the number of civil servants, can the Minister say, in view of the crippling level of taxation in this country, what the Government are doing to control administrative costs, as foreshadowed in the February White Paper?

Mr. Morris: I accept that there has been an appreciable increase in the number of civil servants, but I remind the House that the figures that I have given today include 20,862 civil servants employed by the Manpower Services Commission and its agencies who became civil servants from 1st January 1976 under the provisions of the Employment Protection Act.

Mr. Cryer: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the political control of civil servants, in view of remarks made by recently—departed Ministers? Is he satisfied that civil servants are not exercising undue influence to inhibit the Government's radical programme?

Mr. Morris: Civil servants give advice: Ministers take decisions.

Mr. Adley: Is the Minister not slightly perturbed by reports today that a number of civil servants in the Department of

Health and Social Security are earning less than those to whom they pay benefit?

Mr. Morris: I am disturbed by those reports, but whether they represent fact is open to question.

Pensions

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what recent representations he has received regarding the inflation-proofing of Civil Service pensions.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) on 29th March 1976. Since that date my Department has received a further 10 or so letters on the inflation-proofing of pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.

Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware of the concern felt by many people that the inflation-proofing of Civil Service pensions, coupled with the annual increments paid to public servants, and £6 a week on top, is leading to discrimination in favour of the public sector? As pay control continues for another year this inequity will become greater. Will the Minister conduct an urgent investigation into the subject?

Mr. Morris: My Department is reviewing the whole position of public service pension arrangements. As I have indicated previously, the review will take into account the economic circumstances prevailing when the matter comes up for review later this year.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Minister realise that inflation-proof pensions put civil servants in a specially privileged position compared with all other employees? Surely that is a tremendous factor in the total package over a man's lifetime and should be taken into account by the new review board.

Mr. Morris: I do not accept that inflation-proof arrangements put public servants in a privileged position. The provisions for civil servants are determined on the basis of fair comparisons. The basis of the present levels of salary, pay and pensions in the Civil Service was arrived at as a result of the activities and studies of the Pay Research Unit.

Special Advisers

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what advice is now given to special advisers with regard to their political activities.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: In December 1974 the previous Prime Minister issued a memorandum of guidance to Ministers in charge of Departments about the terms and conditions of employment of special advisers. This guidance still stands.

Mr. Sainsbury: Is the Minister aware that when I was a special adviser I was expected to, and did, resign from my ward committee to conform to the strict rules that were then in force and that should still be in force? Is he satisfied that those same strict rules are enforced now?

Mr. Morris: Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice, which he still gives to Ministers on this subject. Special advisers will be expected to conduct themselves with a proper discretion and to behave with circumspection.

Mr. Ridley: Can the Minster say whether the cost of special advisers will be taxable as a benefit in kind after the Finance Bill has gone through—that is, if one can call it a benefit after last Thursday's local elections?

Mr. Morris: Whether advice is a benefit or not can be judged on the basis of the last supplementary question by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury).

Mr. Gow: Will the Government publish the memorandum of December 1974, which was issued by the former Prime Minister and which the Government have refused to publish?

Mr. Morris: As the House was told on 4th February, it has not been the practice to publish such memoranda.

Mr. Skinner: What is the point of having special political advisers if they have to remove themselves from political activity?

Mr. Morris: I can only suggest that my hon. Friend has not appreciated the significance of the reply that I have already given. should explain that

special advisers are generally regarded as civil servants and their participation in national political activities is inhibited, but the nature of their appointments in no way rules out contacts with their political parties.

DEVOLUTION

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is yet able to make a statement on whether the legislation on devolution will consist of one or two Bills.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): No, Sir. The Government are still considering the representations we have received on this subject.

Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on his new job, give an assurance that the Government will not be swayed from their course by the crowd of reactionary Tory backwoodsmen and big business interests who founded the Keep Britain United Club at the weekend? Does he agree that to renege on the devolution proposals now would play into the hands of those separatists on the Opposition Benches who want to smash up the United Kingdom, and that the best way to preserve unity is by meaningful devolution?

Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. The Government are determined to proceed with the devolution proposals and put them before Parliament in the next Session. We shall no doubt be opposed by blinkered unionists and blinkered separatists, but I believe that in the parliamentary debate we shall beat both.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: How does the Minister justify the spending of the substantial sum of £10 million a year on the proposed new bureaucratic Assembly and employing an extra 1,000 civil servants at a time when the number of home helps in his constituency and in mine is being cut back and when about half the output of the teacher training colleges will not be able to find jobs because of the Government's spending cuts?

Mr. Smith: The justification that I would offer to my constituents, and the


justification that the Government offer to the public, is that decentralisation of power increases democratic accountability, which is an objective worth pursuing.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are some hon. Members on the Labour Benches who have deep reservations about the proposals and who may—I only say "may" at this stage—vote against them if the exercise is to be carried out to the financial disadvantage of the English regions?

Mr. Smith: I know that my hon. Friend has some reservations, which are shared by other hon. Members. It will be the Government's task to persuade them that the proposals are intended not to harm anyone else in the United Kingdom but to give extra democratic accountability to Scotland and Wales. That need not militate against the interests of England or the regions within England. Hon. Members will understand that more clearly as the debate proceeds.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is not the main purpose of those who want two Bills to prevent any discussion of Welsh devolution, because of shortage of time in the House?

Mr. Smith: I shall not comment on the motives of people who make representations to the Government. What I said was that the Government are still considering representations and have not reached a final decision.

Mr. English: As the East Midlands pays more and receives less from central Government, as a proportion, than other regions do, when shall we see the proposals for English devolution?

Mr. Smith: The Government are still considering the matter in the light of the statement in the White Paper that there would be a discussion document on the question of who receives what from the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend should bear in mind that what Scotland, Wales and various regions receive depends on need and not on proportion of the population.

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Lord President of the Council how many representations he has received from chambers of commerce and similar bodies in Scot-

Land and Wales in favour of his devolution proposals, and how many against.

Mr. John Smith: None directly, but I understand that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales have received, respectively, five and one such representations. These opposed the Government's proposals to set up Scottish and Welsh Assemblies.

Mr. Renton: Is it not thus increasingly clear that employers in Scotland and Wales are increasingly rejecting the Government's devolution proposals? Will the Minister confirm that the Government are thinking of giving more powers to the Scottish Assembly simply to preserve their Scottish parliamentary seats and that this is contrary to the wishes of British industry and the people?

Mr. Smith: In the latter part of his question the hon. Gentleman did not rise to the level at which this debate should be conducted. This is a matter of important constitutional change, which can be supported by members of all parties or none. We shall not be guided exclusively by the attitude of employers. The chambers of commerce have stated one view. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish CBI came out broadly in favour of devolution, although it had reservations in detail, that the Scottish Council (Develment Industry) accepted the White Paper in principle, and the TUC, the Scottish TUC and the Welsh TUC are all broadly in favour of the proposal.

Mr. Tapsell: If I may try to rise to the level of the debate, may I ask the Minister whether he really thinks that it is statesmanlike for the Government to proceed with legislation on this immensely important constitutional issue before there is a far greater consensus in both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Smith: There has been a long period of debate, going back to the appointment of the Royal Commission on the Constitution in 1969. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not participated in it, but that is not my fault or the fault of the Government. The Government's view is that after this long period of discussion we must now move towards action.

Mr. Watt: Does the Minister recognise that the best way to resolve the attitude


of the people of Scotland over devolution is to call an early General Election?

Mr. Smith: I do not believe that that would assist the matter in any way. Certainly the hon. Gentleman and his party would not assist it, because they are arguing not for devolution but for the breakup of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Renton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES

Mr. Skinner: asked the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to streamline the functions of Parliament.

Mr. Adley: asked the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to reform procedures within the House of Commons

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for the reform of parliamentary procedures.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I hope to be able to table a motion shortly to appoint a further Select Committee with wide terms of reference.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the road blocks placed in the path of this Government has been the undemocratic House of Lords? Does he deplore the practice of dispensing life peerages, as exemplified by my right hon. Friend the previous Prime Minister—240 in all—and being able to get only 100 to vote Labour in the other place? Will my right hon. Friend, in line with his well-ventilated views of 1968 and 1969, introduce a measure abolishing the House of Lords once and for all?

Mr. Foot: A few years ago in the House I commented extensively on the question of the House of Lords. I do not think that I could repeat all those comments at the Dispatch Box now. I doubt whether such proposals would fall within the terms of reference of this Select Committee. They are matters for wider debate in the country.

Mr. Adley: As the present Government's legislation owes more to quantity than quality, will the right hon. Gentleman consider recommending an early General Election or giving the House of Commons a sabbatical year, with hon. Members making their contribution to reducing the public sector borrowing requirement by forgoing their salaries during that year?

Mr. Foot: I am not quite sure whether any particle of that question has anything to do with the original Question, but I am sure that hon. Members have a whole series of legislative matters that they want to see proceeding through the House. We want to find out whether the whole matter can be organised better than at present. That question should be examined properly by a Select Committee.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many hon. Members could be valuably employed by being a check on the Executive among other things? Will he consider an extension of the Select Committee procedures? Does he agree that there is no excuse for delay in setting up the Select Committee on the reform of our procedures, so that these matters may be deliberated? Is he aware of the intense frustration felt by Back Benchers on the Government side because it has been delayed?

Mr. Foot: I fully understand the frustration of my hon. Friend and several others of my hon. Friends at the delay. I trust that a motion will be put on the Order Paper very speedily to deal with the matter. I am not prejudging whether the establishment of more Select Committees is the way to deal with the problems of the House. The matter must be all looked at afresh.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Will my right hon. Friend include in the wide terms of reference that he is to give the Select Committee the necessity to examine Question Time, with a view to giving Members from the North-West, in particular, their own Question Time?

Mr. Foot: Certainly. That would not be excluded, although it might be a better subject for the ordinary sessional Select Committee on Procedure. I am sure that one or other of these Committee will be able to look at the matter.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Broadcasting of Proceedings

Mr. Loan Evans: asked the Lord President of the Council what arrangements are proposed for the sound broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): The House resolved on 9th April that a Select Committee of Members should join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the implementation of the decisions of both Houses in favour of the establishment of a permanent system of sound broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. This Joint Committee has since had its first meeting, and we must await its recommendations.

Mr. Evans: In view of the success of the early experiments will my hon. Friend encourage the Committee to have hasty deliberations so that we may have broadcasting of the House at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Price: I am a member of that Committee and I know that it is the wish of the House to see a report produced as quickly as possible. I sometimes despair at the length of time it takes to produce such reports, but there are difficult problems involving finance, accommodation, type of broadcasting, copyright, and so on. However, we want to see the report produced quickly and dealt with on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister bear in mind that some Labour Back Benchers regret that a Joint Committee has been set up, because it may be seen as bolstering up the other place when some of us want to see its powers diminished? Will he bear that factor in mind when accepting the Joint Committee's recommendations?

Mr. Price: I shall not accept them; the House will. I was left in a situtation in which this Chamber and the Lords were in favour of broadcasting. Since we had to reach appropriate arrangements, it was necessary to proceed in the way suggested.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SECURITY)

Mr. Powell: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any statement to make on recent entrances into the territory of the Irish Republic by security personnel on duty and on the escape of prisoners from Her Majesty's Prison the Maze.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): In the early hours of Wednesday 5th May nine prisoners claiming affiliation to the Irish Republican Socialist Party escaped from Compound 5 at Her Majesty's Prison, The Maze. It appears that they had constructed a tunnel from Hut 28, which is only approximately 40 yards from the perimeter wall. The tunnel had a concealed entrance under a tiled floor inside the hut. It passed under the compound fence and a corrugated iron fence. a total distance of approximately 40 feet, leaving them with a 17-foot weld mesh fence and a 17-foot wall to surmount. They cut through the fence and other obstacles and climbed the outer wall with the aid of grappling irons constructed from metal furniture and ropes made from sheets and blankets.
Two of the prisoners were recaptured in the vicinity within 24 hours. Two more have subsequently been apprehended in the Irish Republic. Security at the prison is reviewed constantly. Inquiries into the escape continue.
On 6th May eight men of the Special Air Service Regiment entered the territory of the Irish Republic near Omeath. The circumstances were described by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army later that same day. Subsequently, as the House will know, these men were charged before the Special Criminal Court in Dublin with offences relating to the possession of weapons and released on bail.
From time to time members of our security forces and those of the Irish Republic cross the border inadvertently. It is the usual practice when the mistake is discovered for the units concerned to be informed and the troops to be returned. For example, two further incidents occurred on 7th May. These were


at Carrickarnan on the main Belfast-Dublin Road and near Aughnacloy in Co. Tyrone. In both cases the matter was handled locally. In one case the border was crossed during an agreed change of escorts.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who visited troops in border areas on 8th May, is determined that the procedures in such cases should be reviewed to prevent misunderstandings. While the border is crossed occasionally by security forces despite all precautions, it is crossed time and again by the brutal criminals whom the security forces are seeking to apprehend. In the view of my right hon. Friend, this is the problem we really have to tackle.
The wider implications of the incident involving the SAS men are being closely studied. The House will understand that it is better at this stage that I should not discuss the matter further.

Mr. Powell: While I understand that the presence of the Secretary of State is urgently necessary in Northern Ireland, may I ask the Minister of State—who answers in his right hon. Friend's stead—whether he accepts that it is important and in the interests of good relations and co-operation with the Irish Republic that instances of this kind should be reduced to the minimum and that the standard of location, finding and map reading should be so improved that people should no longer be able to observe that those who do not know where they are themselves are unlikely to be able to find terrorists?
On the subject of the escape from Her Majesty's Prison the Maze, may I ask the Minister to confirm that specific measures are in contemplation to prevent any incident of this kind from ever being repeated?

Mr. Concannon: If I may take the last point first, I wish to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we shall take all methods open to us to prevent any repetition of incidents of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman and others will know from past experience that such people as these will always try to break out of prison in one way or the other. We shall try to do everything in our power to keep them locked up, because these brutal criminals should be locked up.
In the other instances, the Government are determined to improve cross-border security and co-operation. Thanks to the efforts of the Irish authorities, much progress has been made, and we hope that it will continue to be made.

Mr. Whitehead: If I may revert to the incursion of the SAS into the Republic, is it not abundantly clear that if the scourge of terrorists in border areas is to be adequately combated, a fresh approach must be made by her Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic concerning cross border patrols by the armed forces on both sides? Does he not agree that if cross-border patrols were carried out jointly by Republican forces and the British Army, perhaps these incursions would not be necessary?

Mr. Concannon: Security co-operation has greatly improved. Obviously there are areas in which we shall have to discuss these matters further, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be doing so.

Mr. Neave: Is the Minister aware that we fully endorse what he said in his statement? Is he also aware that the SAS is one of the best counter-insurgency forces in the world, is carrying out a tremendous job, and has already done much to keep the peace as a result of its presence in South Armagh?
Is he further aware that we are glad that he has confirmed that inadvertent crossings of the border by security forces are not all in one direction? Was the Minister referring to the case of two Irish Army officers, armed and in plain clothes, who were released last autumn? In regard to any future discussions, what machinery have the two Governments in mind to prevent further incidents?

Mr. Concannon: Up to the present these incidents have been handled locally, and with success. The latest incident puts the matter in a different light and my right hon. Friend will be discussing the matter. I readily agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the qualities of the SAS. The SAS is deployed in South Armagh where its skills are particularly valuable, and the force has played a valuable role in that area.

Mr. Gow: Since the soldiers in the SAS went into the Irish Republic


inadvertently and were engaged on the same objective as that of the Republican Government—namely, the elimination of terrorists—is it not regrettable that the Republican Government acted in such a way?

Mr. Concannon: We are all the time seeking to improve cross-border relationships. This incident was a very recent one and we shall conduct talks about it. It is a continuing process.

Mr. Burden: Will the Minister say in how many instances Republican security forces have crossed the border into Northern Ireland in the past two years?

Mr. Concannon: As I said in my statement, there have been a number of incidents and, because of good will on both sides, they have been contained locally. Many hon. Members who know Northern Ireland well, as I do, will realise the nonsense of the border in geographical terms. It is possible to cross, recross and then cross yet again within a distance of 100 yards.

Mr. Goodhart: What procedures must be undertaken before we can secure the return of the two escaped prisoners from the Maze who have gone into the Republic?

Mr. Concannon: We have applied for extradition notices, but the criminal jurisdiction legislation does not apply. The legislation needs to be passed by the Parliaments of both countries. We hope that the commencement date will be within a few days.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the Minister aware that there is some astonishment in this country at the fact that although we allow the free movement of people from Southern Ireland into this country, the incursion over the border of SAS soldiers has caused such problems? Has the Minister received an explanation from the Prime Minister of Southern Ireland about what happened on this occasion?

Mr. Concannon: All contact has been through our ambassador in Dublin. Naturally this case is a matter of concern to both Governments, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is giving it close consideration.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Michael McGuire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise as a point of order what I might describe as the elasticity of Questions. A few weeks ago, when you first became Speaker and you wanted to get the House to appreciate how you would judge Question Time, I thought that this matter was raised and was successfully dealt with in that you were reminded by one of my leagues that, amongst other things, Questions were intended to offer some opportunity for ingenuity to hon. Members in putting supplementary questions and also to keep Ministers on their toes more often, rather than having stereotyped Questions, with hon. Members simply putting down Questions and supplementary questions being asked only on the specific subjects contained in those Questions. After all, Question Time can be very much a lottery. An hon. Member can put down a Question very early and, because of the system that we operate, subsequently find his name way down the list with no possibility of linkage with earlier Questions.
I put it to you, with respect, that on a Question about how many Civil Service jobs have gone to Scotland, it is quite proper for me, as a Member who wants many of these jobs to go to the North-West, to seek to put a supplementary question drawing the Minister's attention to the needs of my part of the world, and for any other hon. Member, on a Question dealing with the dispersal of jobs, also to seek to put a similar supplementary question.
I was sorry that you felt it necessary to intervene. I did not mean to be disrespectful. I thought that we had an agreement on this matter and that my supplementary question fell within that agreement.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) for the way in which he put his point of order. I, too, thought that this matter had been cleared up. But there must be some sort of relationship between the Question on the Order Paper and the supplementary question. The Question in this case was quite clear:
how many Civil Service jobs are based in Scotland?


It was my judgment that supplementary questions about other parts of the United Kingdom did not fall under that Question.
I am doing my best to be as tolerant as possible at Question Time. But, as I understand it, there must be a link between a supplementary question and the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Buchan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept completely the generality of your ruling. It is absolutely right. However, I ask you respectfully to look at the particular types of questions which arose. The truth is that this subject will be discussed continually in the House, because there is a direct relationship between jobs going to one area and jobs going to another area. Therefore, it is in effect the same type of question. It will be the most important matter discussed throughout the next Session of Parliament. It is crucially important in this case not that the limits of the Question should be extended but that it should be considered proper for such supplementary questions to be put.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling, of course. However, perhaps I might point out to you, so that you can take the matter into consideration in future Questions, that we have a somewhat strange system in this House whereby 100 or so of the majority party are taken out of the majority party to form the Government and they assess the priorities indicated in such matters as are raised in Question No. 23. The only way in which Back Bench Members of the majority party or of the Opposition parties can question such priorities, often in a comparative way—Scotland against the English regions, and so on—is by raising issues here in this House. The effect of limiting the raising of those issues inevitably reduces the amount of questioning of the Executive which takes place. Shore of a radical reform to allow more participation by the majority party, Question Time remains a very important time in which those priorities can be steered, questioned and guided.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friends, perhaps I might draw your attention to the fact that there is an additional

point which needs to be made. I am sure that you appreciate it fully. When we were discussing devolution some time after the Question to which my hon. Friends referred, we were discussing it in terms of the Scottish and Welsh dimensions, whereupon, quite naturally and properly, you permitted the supplementary question which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), who went on to talk about devolution in respect of an area. That is not dissimilar to the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) in Question No. 23. Both these are areas which could be covered by the same Question, rather than being looked at purely in nationalistic terms.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In expressing sympathy with you in your difficult task of limiting the area covered by supplementary questions, may I ask whether it is not right to say that your task would be made easier if some of the monumental essays delivered as supplementary questions were both abbreviated and put into the interrogative?

Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful for every reminder that supplementary questions should be brief. I am also grateful to those hon. Members who submitted points of view which I shall bear in mind in calling supplementary questions.

NOMINATION OF STANDING COMMITTEES

Mr. George Cunningham: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot be the only hon. Member who read with astonishment in Friday's Hansard that at the end of the day on Friday a motion was put—so far as I know without notice, except in Friday's Order Paper—concerning the Committee of Selection. It had not appeared in the remaining Orders in any previous Order Paper. The motion related to the criteria to be applied by the Committee of Selection in setting up Standing Committees.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that, just a week ago today, the House devoted two hours of time in a packed Chamber to discuss this matter. The motion before the House at that time was a technical motion of the Adjournment of the House.


But clearly a very large number of hon. Members were interested in the matter and would have voted one way or the other if a substantive motion had been put at a time that they knew that it was to be put. But, apparently by the limitless insolence of the Front Benches, this motion was put down without any Back Bench Member knowing that it would be coming along after it had been debated for two hours a week ago, and it was passed on the nod.
As far as I know there is no rule, either in Standing Orders or in "Erskine May", to prevent a motion of this kind being put down on a Friday with no one knowing that it is coming and then being passed on the nod. But it should not pass without notice that that is a quite intolerable breach of respect from the Front Benches to the Back Benches—

Mr. Peyton: It had nothing to do with the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Cunningham: If it had nothing to do with the Opposition, let them disclaim any part in it—

Mr. Speaker: I shall be grateful for a point of order which I can resolve.

Mr. Cunningham: Am I right in thinking that this motion did not appear on the remaining Orders which were noticed in Order Papers previous to that of Friday and that, accordingly, any hon. Member who was not here on Friday and did not see the Order Paper for Friday had no means of knowing that this decision would be pre-empted without proper discussion and the motion passed on the nod in this fashion?
May we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that it will be the last time that this ever happens?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am very sorry if my hon. Friend feels aggrieved about what happened. The responsibility is mine and not that of anyone else in the House. But if my hon. Friend and others had been present on Thursday, when questions were put on this matter, they would have been well aware that action would be taken on the matter. Anyone who is familiar with our procedures would have

realised that, I think. I am sure that that was the understanding of the vast majority of hon. Members. But if my hon. Friend had a different understanding and he feels that I should have made the position clearer, I apologise to him and to the House.

Mr. Burden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Government Front Bench were a little punch drunk on Friday and not really responsible for their actions.

Mr. Foot: I am sure that that punch has missed the chin at which it was aimed. I was simply explaining my belief that, when questions are put from the Opposition Front Bench or elsewhere and the Government indicate generally the line that they intend to take, the House understands what is being done.

RABIES

Mr. Adley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for harsher penalties for people convicted of contravening the animal quarantine regulations".
The matter is specific because rabies is a clearly defined disease, easily identified, feared and dreaded, and it is likely to reach these shores only by an act of man rather than by an act of God.
It is important because, once here, this disease will not easily be eradicated, and eradication is painful, socially divisive and very expensive in cash and human terms.
The matter is urgent because the disease has already reached the French Channel ports—and Dunkirk will be no salvation in 1976.
The Government, I know, are aware of the dangers, but they appear to be concentrating their efforts on the larger ports, whereas there is a real threat in the smaller ports, and the Government have not yet had a meeting with the National Yacht Harbours Association. The resources of Her Majesty's Customs are stretched to the limit, particularly in the summer, at the smaller ports and some confusion appears to exist as


between the harbour commissioners, the police, port health authorities and Her Majesty's Customs officers.
As deterrence is likely to be the only defence, I submit that a maximum fine of £400 is wholly inadequate. There is therefore a need for mandatory prison sentences and the destruction of illegally imported animals.
For those reasons, I submit that this is a proper matter which should have precedence over other business.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for harsher penalties for people convicted of contravening the animal quarantine regulations.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman's representations, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Stand-

ing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

FARMWORKERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Miss Joan Maynard, supported by Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. John Prescott, Mr. Stan Thorne, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr Frank Allaun, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Ron Thomas, and Mr. Neil Carmichael, presented a Bill to amend the Employment Protection Act to the extent that is necessary to provide for the conversion of the Agricultural Wages Board to a statutory Joint Industrial Council and for the development of voluntary machinery for regulating terms and conditions of employment for farmworkers, and for connected purposes; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill No. 138.]

COMPANIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Companies (No. 2) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee. —[Mr. Pendry]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

As amended (in Standing Committee), considered

New Clause 1

USE OF SPARE CAPACITY OF COMPUTERS AND PRINTING EQUIPMENT OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

'(1) If a local authority—

(a) has provided a computer or printing equipment for the purpose of enabling the authority to perform any of its functions other than functions under this section; and,
(b)considers that the computer or equipment can, without detriment to its use for that purpose, be used for the benefit of the authority in pursuance of the following provisions of this section,

the authority may enter into agreements with other persons for the provisions by the authority of facilities for using the computer or equipment or of services provided by means of the computer or of goods produced by means of the equipment.

(2)An agreement in pursuance of this section may contain such terms as to payment or otherwise as the parties consider appropriate.

(3)In this section "computer" means any device for storing and processing information and "printing equipment" includes any equipment for reproducing or recording documents.' —[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.53 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause would enable local authorities to use up the spare capacity of computing equipment and reprographic machinery, installed for their own use, by undertaking work for any persons, including private persons and commercial and industrial concerns, voluntary bodies, and so on, as well as the public authorities for which they can already do work under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. The clause relates to the capacity installed by the local authority having regard to its own expected needs within the expected life

of the equipment, that is, it does not enable an authority to install additional capacity specifically to act as a printing works or computer bureau for the general market.
The clause is an extension of the long-established general power which local authorities have to dispose of surplus stores. Because their data processing activities are growing, local authorities purchasing equipment tend to go, as a matter of common prudence, for machines with more capacity than is immediately needed. They are then faced with a problem of expensive idle machine capacity for a considerable time until their usage of the machine catches up with its capacity. The same occurs on a smaller scale with lithograph, Xerox and microfilm equipment.
Expenditure by local authorities on the acquisition of computers required for the performance of their functions is clearly incidental to the discharge of those functions, and covered by Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. It is arguable that the sale of spare computer time is incidental to the economic operation of computers, and is thus incidental to that incidental usage, and so also covered by Section 111. But this would involve applying Section 111 at one remove, and as the spare capacity may initially be a significant proportion of the capacity required for their functions, local authorities do not feel confident that if they did this and the matter come before the courts their action would be upheld. Indeed, they do not want to be in a position where their action was likely to be brought before the courts, and so long as they were acting under powers that were not clearly and certainly applicable to the immediate matters, there would be a real risk of challenge.
I hope that the House will accept the clause on the clear understanding, which is plain from its wording, that it will not involve local authorities in acquiring equipment for use for commercial purposes but will simply enable them to use the equipment more economically by making it available to other bodies and persons when they are not using it themselves.

Mr. Keith Speed: This is, I think, the first time that the Under-Secretary of State has taken part in the


deliberations on the Bill. I should therefore like to welcome him to our discussions.
There have been a number of changes since we discussed the Bill in Committee. We have a new Secretary of State and a new Under-Secretary of State. Also, we have a new régime in local government. All these changes are acceptable to us, particularly the last. Therefore, I hope that we shall be able to proceed with expedition, because the Bill will be helpful to local authorities throughout the country.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the idea was not that additional capacity should be generated or that general trading activities in connection with photographic reproduction equipment or computers would be undertaken by local authorities. I suppose that it is possible for a local authority, when buying computer equipment or photographic reproduction equipment, deliberately to over-purchase on the basis that it might expect to use the capacity within, say, five or 10 years. I am not sure whether the clause covers that possibility.
I accept the general point made by the Under-Secretary of State. We are not talking about an increase in general trading, or anything of that kind, but there is danger of a local authority saying "We shall ensure that the new equipment is of such capacity that we can take advantage of the provision" and perhaps achieve what the Secretary of State says it is not supposed to achieve. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could reassure us about that matter.
I accept that there should be maximum utilisation of expensive equipment, which may be bought outright or, as often happens, leased. We would not quarrel with that.
I am not quite clear whether the new clause is precedented. Having read the Official Report of the Standing Committee proceedings, the hon. Gentleman will know that whether a clause or amendment was precedented loomed large in the minds of the Committee—even the major amendment which the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) added in relation to taxicabs was precedented in the Plymouth Private

Bill. We want to make it clear that there should not be long complicated court battles. Could the hon. Gentleman give some reply to the fears and reservations which I have expressed?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I thank the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) for his generous remarks. I am sure that we shall enjoy speaking opposite one another on local government and other matters, although we shall no doubt disagree from time to time. I accept his remarks in the spirit in which he made them.
The hon. Gentleman expressed natural anxiety about whether a local authority might decide to purchase equipment excess to its foreseen needs on the assumption that it would be used up by letting out the service to other organisations and bodies. The only way I can reassure him is to refer him to the terms of new Clause 1. It says:
If a local authority—
(a) has provided a computer or printing equipment for the purpose of enabling the authority to perform any of its functions other than functions under this section".
That makes it clear that the purpose of such purchase would be for the use of the local authority's statutory functions. So, if a local authority considers such to be the case, that would be the circumstance in which it might purchase a computer, knowing that, after its purchase, for some period—no one can say precisely how long—it might have its excess capacity taken up by other work. But I do not think that a local authority that stated that it was purchasing a computer expecting that there would be excessive capacity for many years to come would be within the spirit of new Clause 1—indeed, quite likely, it would be ultra vires in so doing.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether new Clause 1 was precedented. I am sure that it is. The local authority associations are very anxious to have such aprovision I hope that, with my assurances, the hon. Gentleman will accept the new clause.

Question put and agred to

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill

New Clause 2

POWERS OF DISTRICT AUDITOR AND THE COURT

'The following section shall be substituted for section 161 of the Local Government Act 1972:—

"161—(1) Where an audit of any accounts under this Part of this Act is carried out by a district auditor and it appears to him:

(a) that any item of account is contrary to law and has not been sanctioned by the Secretary of State; or
(b) that any person has failed to bring into account any sum which should have been so included and that the failure has not been sanctioned by the Secretary of State: or
(c) that a loss has been incurred or deficiency caused by the wilful misconduct of any person;
he shall issue a certificate specifying every such item, sum, loss or deficiency and the amount thereof and naming the person or persons whom he considers to be responsible for the same and each of them.

(2) The said certificate shall be sent by the district auditor to the body in question and to each person named in it and shall be accompanied by a statement by the district auditor of his reasons for reaching the conclusions expressed in the certificate.

(3) Within 28 days of making the certificate required under subsection (1) above the district auditor shall apply to the court for such order or orders as the Court may think fit to make as hereinafter provided in respect of the said certificate and against any person or persons named in it.

(4) On an application under subsection (3) above the Court may confirm, vary or quash the said certificate and, if it confirms or varies it. May

(a) order that any person named in the said certificate as confirmed or varied shall pay to the body which incurred the expenditure so held to be contrary to law or which suffered loss due to the failure to bring into account any sum or sums or which suffered loss or deficiency due to the wilful misconduct of any person, such part as the court thinks fit but not exceeding £1,500 of the sums for the expenditure or failure to bring into account or loss or deficiency of which such person was responsible;
(b) subject to subsection (5) hereof whether or not it makes an order for the payment of any part of such expenditure or losses or deficiency if the total thereof exceeds £2,500 and any person responsible for authorising or incurring them is or was at the time of his so doing a member of a local authority shall order him to be disqualified for being a member or elected to a local authority for a period of five years unless there are special circumstances connected with the relevant

transactions to be specified by the Court which in the opinion of the Court justify the remission of the whole or part of any such disqualification.

(5) The Court shall not make an order under subsection (4)(a) or (b) above if the Court is satisfied that the person authorising or incurring the expenditure, loss or deficiency in question acted reasonably or in the belief that his action was authorised by law, and in any other case, before making an order under subsection (4)(a) above, shall have regard to all the circumstances, including that person's means and ability to pay and the degree to which in the opinion of the Court he was guilty of wilful default.

(6)(a) Where any person has made an objection under Section 159(3) above the district auditor shall send to such person a copy of any certificate issued by him relating to any of the matters or persons to whom such objection related and of his reasons for so certifying or, if he decides not to issue any certificate relating to those matters or persons or any of them shall so inform him stating in writing the reasons for his decision.

(b) Any such person who is aggrieved by a failure or refusal of the district auditor to issue a certificate relating to any matter in respect of which he made objection or to any person whom he alleges to be responsible therefore may apply to the court.

(c) On any such application the court may confirm, vary or quash any relevant decision of the district auditor and give any certificate which he could have given and a certificate so given shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (4) above and the following provisions of this section as if it were a certificate given by the district auditor and confirmed by the court.

(7) The body in question and any person in relation to whom an order may be made in proceedings under any of the foregoing provisions of this section shall be entitled to appear and be heard in such proceedings.

(8) The courts having jurisdiction for the purposes of this section shall be the High Court except that, if no sum specified in the certificate given under subsection (1) above exceeds the amount over which county courts have jurisdiction in actions founded on contracts, the county court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court.

(9) Any expenses incurred by a district auditor in complying with the foregoing provisions of this section shall so far as not recovered from any other source be recoverable from the body from the audit of whose accounts such expenses arose unless the court otherwise directs.

(10) In this section 'local authority' includes the Common Council".'—[Mr. Percival.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ian Percival: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: We shall take at the same time Amendment No. 183, in Title, line 9, after 'enactments' insert
'to amend the law relating to the powers of district auditors and the court'.

Mr. Percival: I echo the good wishes to the Under-Secretary of State expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and I add the hope that the first clause I have the opportunity to debate with the hon. Gentleman will meet the same fate as the first clause he has debated with my hon. Friend.
There is more than an echo in new Clause 2 of the Clay Cross affair. I think that the whole country must have felt great satisfaction in the fact that last week all those who behaved in a manner which received such scrutiny in this House as recently as last August were swept from office by the electors, both in Clay Cross and in the North-East Derbyshire District Council, because that is the best way of all to treat those who do not carry out their job as councillors.
I refer to Clay Cross, but it should be remembered that the story includes others who acted similarly to the Clay Cross councillors but who sought shelter at the expense of the Clay Cross councillors and received succour at the hands of the Government, through Section 1 of the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Act 1975. A great many of these came from Birmingham and the surrounding areas, and although we do not know their names because we have not had the rent loss certificates—the hon. Gentleman may know what has become of them—it is plain that in that area the swing against the party which permitted its councillors to act in that way was also very heavy. Many of us will think that to have been no coincidence.
I stress this because I believe that the ballot box is the best way to deal with those who betray the trust put in them by their electors. But, of course, we must have other methods of dealing with them as well, and as I want to keep this matter entirely non-controversial, I now pass on to other methods suggested for dealing between elections with people who act in that way.
Two questions are raised by new Clause 2. I think that we would all agree that provisions are needed for dealing with councillors who err or who wilfully dis-

obey the law. But that brings us face to face with the questions whether the existing provisions are satisfactory, and, secondly, whether, if it is claimed that those existing provisions could do with improvement, new Clause 2 would secure that improvement. I ask the first question particularly to acknowledge the fact that the provisions we seek to replace by new Clause 2 are very recent, and in such circumstances it might be quite a good argument simply to say that since those provisions were introduced only a year or so ago we should wait and see how they work out.
But in the circumstances of the Clay Cross affair, we have to consider the subject of how one deals with what used to be surcharges and disqualifications. The Clay Cross affair led to us in this House discussing that subject at much greater length and in greater detail than, I should think, had ever been the case before. It caused many of us to look at the provisions of Section 161 of the Local Government Act 1972, because although they did not apply to the Clay Cross councillors, that was through an accident of timing, and there is the argument that such cases should not be dealt with by antiquated provisions simply by accidents of timing.
We concluded, therefore, that even if those provisions are fairly recent and have not been tested at great length, a good deal of what is contained in them has been discussed in considerable detail by the House, and what we put before the House now is intended to be a constructive suggestion flowing from those discussions. It is a somewhat touchy subject, but I do not think that it is nearly as difficult as some people tend to think. I will put it as simply as I can.
We are dealing here with three kinds of entry which appear in accounts. The first is the kind of entry in the accounts which is contrary to the law; the second is the failure to include an entry, or the failure to enter something which should have been entered; the third is the loss or deficiency resulting from neglect or any particular wilful misconduct.
These classifications are a very respectable antiquity, and one day there may be further classifications. But for the purposes of the present discussion, and the provisions proposed to the House, I


am retaining these three divisions. There is a good deal to be said for retaining them, because everyone has got used to them, has some idea how they work, or do not work, and knows how to approach them.
In Section 161 of the 1972 Act, which I hope to replace with this new clause, one approach was adopted in relation to the first of these categories of accounting items and a different approach was adopted in relation to the second and third. What we have done here is combine the best of both approaches that were introduced in Section 161 and then we have combined with them the constructive suggestions which emerged from the debates on the Clay Cross affair. incorporating, in addition, a number of amendments to our proposals which were made in another place. That has produced what the House may feel is a worthwhile solution, or, at least, a solution which will merit detailed and continuing discussion in order to bring about some such changes soon, even if not now.
This does not mean that I am withdrawing in any way from my attempt to get the House to accept the new clause now, but, in attempting to draft these provisions without the assistance of a Department or a parliamentary counsel, I admit that there may be technical difficulties that we have overlooked. I have an open mind on that possibility and shall give consideration to what the Minister says if he claims there are difficulties of this kind.
The House should make these changes only if it is sure that there are advantages to be secured by doing so. What, then, are the advantages? First, if this provision were introduced, the consequence would be that all who err—and I use this word purposely because it is not always wickedness; it may be just a plain mistake—would be dealt with in exactly the same way. The same flexibility would be available for dealing with every case, the same procedure would be used, and the same considerations borne in mind.
Secondly, all these people would be dealt with by the courts, and I place tremendous importance on this. What we all learned as a result of Clay Cross—and one should try to learn something from all such matters—was the need for flexibility, the need to give someone dis-

cretion. One cannot have a flexible provision unless discretion is given to someone to deal with the matter. What emerged clearly was that in highly political matters such as Clay Cross, such discretion as exists is exercised by politicians, which makes the whole thing immediately suspect and open to grave criticism.
The Clay Cross affair was difficult for us in this House, difficult for the Executive and also for the public. These difficulties are removed entirely, at the drop of a hat, by leaving the decisions to the courts. Once one has accepted that fact, one can give effect to it because one is no longer worried by the proposition of giving too much lattitude to politicians.
I suggest to the Minister and to hon. Members—because at this stage I do think that I am discussing not a party matter but a matter of considerable interest to all hon. Members and all those who serve in local government—that one advantage of putting discretion and responsibility with the court is that it immediately opens up much greater possibilities for dealing with the matter in a flexible way. Surely that must be right as a first step.
4.15 p.m.
I can anticipate one of the arguments which probably will be put up against the clause. The Minister probably will say that it will cause a great deal of work and delay. That is fiddlesticks. Surely there would not be a great number of such cases. In fact, I do not think any of us ever heard of such a case until the Clay Cross affair. Therefore, the number we are dealing with will be small. Would such cases take any length of time? If people are concerned about that they can forget about it because, contrary to the general view, if something needs doing in a hurry, the courts will do it in a hurry. When there is delay it is almost invariably delay on the part of the parties concerned and not on the part of the courts. Therefore, there need be no appreciable delay in dealing with the small number of cases likely to arise.
What about the time taken in the hearing itself? Would it put a burden on the court or would it prove very expensive? There is the kind of case where there is no dispute about the facts,


and the courts will be called upon to exercise their discretion. It is difficult to see such a case taking more than half a day. Someone would have to give the court an outline of the facts leading to the parties being there, and make suggestions to the court as to what course of action should be taken and how the court should exercise its discretion. It is difficult to see such a case taking any appreciable length of time. It is the sort of situation with which the courts, and those who work in them, are familiar.
What about the contested case? That would take some time, but, then, we hope that it would. It is right that it should take time in the one place above all others which is best armed, best experienced and most suitable to determine contested facts. If there is a contest on the facts, the High Court or, if appropriate, the county court is by far the best place for issues of that kind to be decided. The issues are taken out of the political arena, and that is important. But even more important, that is the task which those courts exist to carry out. It is to that end that all their training, experience and traditions have been directed.
There are further advantages in the proposals compared with the existing law. Perhaps I may demonstrate them by explaining what the court can and cannot do. The combined effects of subsections (4) and (5) are that the court cannot make an order either for the repayment of money or for disqualification if it is satisfied:
that the person authorising or incurring the expenditure, loss or deficiency in question acted reasonably or in the belief that his action was authorised by law".
That is, in its simplest form, the concept that has been contained in legislation on these matters for some time and which emerged quite clearly from our debates on Clay Cross as one we should like to see enshrined in the law. The provision gives total protection to anyone who acts reasonably or believing that his action is authorised by the law.
We have prescribed in subsection (5) that before making an order for repayment of money the court shall have regard to all the circumstances including the person's means and his ability to pay. There was no such discretion in the

provisions we considered in the Clay Cross affair. Under Section 161 of the 1972 Act, there is such discretion in relation to moneys arising from an item which is contrary to the law, but there is no such discretion in relation to sums arising under either of the other two heads. The district auditor's certificate has to cover the whole amount. The court may reconsider the auditor's decision but can make only the same orders as the auditor could have made.
The clause goes on to say that the court must have regard to
the degree to which in the opinion of the Court he was guilty of wilful default".
Therefore the whole provision becomes much less rigid. One can imagine the difference between one case and another where one involves the absolute minimum of culpabality and the other a high degree of culpability and that a penalty which may be disastrous for one person may not be disastrous for another. It is therefore surely right that this flexibility should exist, not merely in relation to items which are contrary to the law but in relation to proceedings concerning items under any one of the three categories.
There is another way in which the provisions are much more flexible and merciful. They prescribe a maximum amount which the court can order to be paid. I have specified £1,500. Last year we were talking about £1,000. The increase takes account of the fall in the value of money under the Government's policies in the last 12 months. I am not wedded to the figure however. I have increased the disqualification figure from £2,000 to £2,500, and I would have thought that these amounts were probably on the right track.
The other respect in which the provisions are much more merciful and flexible is that there is no automatic disqualification in any instance. There is the provision that the court shall disqualify for a period of five years where the amount in question exceeds £2,500, unless certain conditions obtain. Under Section 161 the court could impose disqualification for more than five years, but with our new proposals we feel that five years is long enough. After that the electors would have their opportunity to express a view through the ballot box, and that is the best way for electors to deal with people who betray their trust. The court does not have to make a disqualification order, or if it


thinks it just and fit to disqualify for a lesser period than five years, it may do so, provided that it states its reasons on either count.
It seems inconceivable that any Government would or could do what this Government did for councillors who defied the law. It is even more unlikely that that will ever happen again, because even the most insensitive must blush a little upon looking back on what was done last year. That, however, is all the more reason for taking the opportunities available to us for improving the machine that we want to be used. If people do not take the law into their own hands but are prepared to lest the matter be dealt with under the proper machinery laid down by the House they are entitled to expect that machinery to be efficient, just and flexible. The other side of the coin is that if we provide such machinery, it is that much more likely that they will permit matters to be dealt with in the proper legal way and not take the law into their own hands.
We believe that the new clause would make a significant contribution in all those fields. In the highly charged atmosphere of Clay Cross, the proposals that similar provisions should be introduced to deal with that situation failed by only 14 votes. I hope that in the cooler atmosphere of the House now, they will be accepted.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I thank the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), first for his very kind remarks about myself, and secondly, for the very moderate way in which he has moved the new clause. I began to wonder about it when he started to refer to events of last week, but he quickly got off that subject and on to the advantages, as he sees them, of his new clause.
There is one general point that I ought to make at the outset because it is relevant to other new clauses that we may be debating later, and that is the nature of the Bill. I ought to make it clear to the House in general—though I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates this—that in Committee it was very clearly agreed that the Bill has two objectives. The principal objective is to allow the continuation in effect of provisions that have existed in local Acts, prior to the reorganisation of local government, which would otherwise have

been repealed by virtue of Section 262 of the 1972 Act.
Therefore, the Bill in essence is a consolidation measure in general legislation. It contains things that are valuable and generally well precedented—I should like to stress the words "well precedented"—provisions from the mass of local private Acts which will otherwise lapse in 1979, in the case of metropolitan authorities, and 1984, in the case of others.
To reduce the size of private Bills and to save the time of local authorities and this House, the Department has scrutinised all well-precedented local Act provisions to determine which are of sufficient merit to justify general enactment. Some already are in recent public Acts, others are in this Act, and some are under consideration for later, more specialised legislation.
The Bill was amended very much in Committee. Certainly some new clauses are for consideration on this occasion. However, I think that in every case I can say that it was fairly well precedented. I must also accept that there are subsidiary purposes of this Bill in connection with the Public Health Acts, but that is in preparation for future consolidation.
The trouble with the new clause, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will well know, is that it is not well precedented. I could also be described as controversial—though I must say that after the description of the new clause as a fitting after-event of the events of last week, I am surprised to see such a relatively small number of Members sitting on the benches behind the hon. and learned Gentleman. Nevertheless, the new clause is to a degree controversial. In that sense one would not normally consider it to be suitable as part of the legislation that we are considering.
I want to deal with certain criticisms of the new clause that ought to be made. I think that what I am about to say was implied by the hon. and learned Gentleman. That is that the audit system in local government was reviewed and changed by the Administration that he supported, in the 1972 Act, resulting in Section 181. As the House knows, that Act has been operative only from 1st April 1974. The first accounts which have, as it were, been affected by that


Act, have been from 31st March of last year, so they have been in operation for only barely one year. Here the hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing a new clause which would amend that Act, a part of that Act which has been in operation for only one year—and his Act rather than our Act. I do not think that it shows very much confidence in the Act that his party put on the statute book to come along to the House and to propose a new clause which would make quite a considerable change to legislation that has so recently come into operation.
I also ought to comment on the district auditor system as a whole. There is no question that it is highly valued and respected. I want also to emphasise that it is independent—whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman may have said in his speech. It has been independent and has earned and gained that respect over a period of 100 years.

Mr. Percival: I am sure that the record will show that I said nothing to reflect in any way upon the district auditors. I was not talking about the exercise of discretion by them. It is the exercise of discretion by politicians in relation to their certificates after they have been made. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make it perfectly clear that nothing I said was in any way intended to reflect on the district auditors.

Mr. Barnett: I am grateful for that correction. I am sorry if I misunderstood what the hon. and learned Gentleman said.
At any rate, to some degree the new clause would derogate from the kind of situation that has so far existed. The consequences would probably be a substantial increase of work for the courts. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that it would not be very great. Nevertheless, he will know from his own experience—as I am afraid I do not know from mine—that the courts are at present over-burdened and that there are delays there, and that there could be public expenditure consequences arising from his proposals. I am not certain, even, that we have not got a very satisfactory system as it stands, and I see a number of dangers that could arise from the proposals in the new clause.
Before the Local Government Act 1972 was enacted, the district auditor had even wider powers than he has now. If he found that an item of account was contrary to law, he could surcharge the officers or members of the local authority who were responsible for incurring the expenditure in question and he could surcharge the amounts of any loss or deficiency caused by negligence or misconduct. The 1972 Act made some changes to this. In particular, the district auditor no longer surcharges expenditure which is contrary to law. Instead, he goes to the court for a declaration if he contends that expenditure is contrary to law, and the process of recovery follows from what the court finds.
That seems to me to have been a wise change to make, because the court—it will often be the High Court that is involved—is the body most suited for deciding such a matter. But the 1972 Act left with the district auditor the duty of recovering the losses or deficiencies in other cases. Again, this seems to me to be the best course. Most of the cases in question are what would usually be described as frauds, and the amount of loss will usually be revealed in the auditor's examination of the account. He, after all, is best qualified in such cases to get the wheels of recovery in motion.
I do not think that I need to dwell for long on the nature of the office of district auditor. For over a century district auditors have been responsible for surcharging losses, having a firmly-established code by which the conduct of their proceedings is regulated. Their decisions are and always have been subject to appeal to the High Court, and the court—and as far as I know, everyone else—has always accepted that their proceedings are conducted in the proper judicial manner. I am not surprised that the 1972 Act left this matter in their hands, and for the reasons I have mentioned I am convinced that this would not be an opportune moment to change the situation as it now stands.

Mr. Percival: To a large extent I expected the Minister's comments and I shall not repeat what I said. It is, however, Section 161, not Section 181. It received very little, if any, discussion


during the passage of the Bill, because it was an enormous measure and there were other things that interested people more—things that they understood—and that was understandable.
I do not think that we should wait long before further considering this matter, because we have had more discussion on it during the last 12 months than there was in the previous 12 years and during the passage of the Bill. In addition—and I stress this and have said it before—we now have the experience to draw on of the Clay Cross affair which made many of us give considerable attention to the kind of remedy about which we are now talking and which most of us will admit had taken very little of our time prior to those events.
I put forward the new clause as an attempt to build on what was then left. It is not intended to reflect upon the district auditor or to derogate from his powers. There was a derogation in the 1972 Act, as the Minister said, because in the case of an item contrary to law instead of surcharging then and mere the district auditor goes to the court. I do not think that in these proposals there is any further derogation. It is simply that instead of issuing a certificate which then has the effect set out in Section 161 —when he has issued his certificate the effects are different—that certificate is referred to the court and the court makes the necessary order. I do not think it makes any difference to the extent of the district auditor's powers. It is certainly not intended to reflect any lack of confidence in either his ability or his approach to the matter.
I shall in a moment ask the leave of the House to withdraw the new clause because I very much agree with the spirit of what the Minister said in reply to the case that I put to the House. This measure is designed to contain general powers which need not then be repeated in private legislation. I speak now from a legal rather than a policy point of view, though there is an element of policy here as well. It is enormously important that we do not allow ourselves to slip back into the position where there are hundreds of private Acts. This measure is a first step towards avoiding that—that was the Minister's point with which I agree—but this is only a. miscellaneous provisions Bill. Would that it

were a general powers Bill containing far more than this and containing all the non-controversial things.
I say to the Minister now that, from the lawyers' point of view, any approach designed to take this a stage further by including other non-controversial matters in a general powers Bill—and it has to be non-controversial because there will not be time in the foreseeable future in the timetable of legislation for a highly-controversial Bill—will be welcome. Any move to extend the number of provisions that can be agreed and included in a non-controversial general powers Bill will meet with a ready response from this side of the House.
Because I appreciate that the new clause does not fall into that category, anti because I appreciate the strength of the point made by the Minister and the desire to follow it up and do something constructive in this connection, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

AMENDMENT OF HIGHWAYS ACT 1959

'For subsection (2) of section 176 of the Hgihways Act 1959 there shall be substituted the following subsection:
(2) In settling the apportionment regard shall be had to the following considerations—

(a) the greater or less degree of benefit to be derived by any premises from the street works; and
(b) the amount and value of any work already done by the owners or occupiers of any premises" '.—[Mr. Ronald Bell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we are to take Amendment No. 185, in Title, line 9, after 'enactments', insert:
'to amend section 176(2) of the Highways Act 1959'

Mr. Bell: The new clause is about what are called road charges, and its purpose is to amend Section 176(2) of the Highways Act 1959. I have in mind what the Minister said about the purpose of the


Bill, but I hope that he will feel that the clause can be encompassed within that intention.
Almost every private Act of a local authority has some provision about road charges. In the case of my own county, Buckinghamshire, its private Act has a provision which allows it to mitigate the road charges on flank frontages. The Highways Act 1959 is one of those unusual Acts which was drafted by a departmental committee, the Reading Committee, of which I was a member. Drafting a highways measure is a labour of Hercules, but I took the opportunity, within the rather narrow terms of our remit, to introduce into the Highways Act some mitigation for frontages of the provisions hitherto applying to the making up of private roads, particularly in relation to flank frontages.
The purpose of the new clause is to make mandatory upon local authorities a procedure that is at present in Section 167(2) of the Highways Act, but is there in optional form. What that section says about the making up of private roads is that the cost of making them up shall be divided among the frontagers according to the length of their frontages, and then subsection (2) offers a voluntary mitigation of that by saying that the local authority may resolve—not must—that regard must be had to the degree of benefit from the making up enjoyed by the various frontagers and also—though this is not really the point—to any money that has been spent by them on making up the road. The degree of benefit point is the one that I am making with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) in the new clause.
The optional procedure which takes into account the degree of benefit is, in my experience, hardly ever used, and one understands why. The Section 1 procedure, which is arithmetical according to the length of frontage, is simple. One takes a tape measure and measures the frontage, and, having got the estimated total cost, one divides the length of frontages into the cost and so finds what each person has to pay.
Those concerned can appeal to the magistrates' court, but there is not much one can do with the laws of arithmetic and the scope of appeal is so narrow

that there is not much point in appealing. If, however, the local authority, under the existing law, resolves to have regard to the degree of benefit, the frontager can appeal to the magistrates' court and argue about the validity of the council's decision on the degree of benefit that he will get from the making up of the road.
There is a very good argument concerning comparative degrees of benefit, and local authorities do not like to get involved in this argument in court. They solve the problem by not adopting the optional procedure at all. This matters, because the strict arithmetical system can work extreme hardship on some people. I suppose that a Member of this House raises points such as this almost inevitably when he comes across practical illustrations in his constituency.
I have a special interest in this in any event, but I have come across some most disturbing cases which have presented dreadful financial problems. I have one at the moment. A constituent has a "front" frontage on to a road which is not being made up, and the length of his garden, which is reasonably long, has a flank frontage to a road which is to be made up. He is not a person of substantial means—he is retired, on a pension—and he is faced with an enormous bill for the making up of a long stretch of road from which he derives no benefit at all because he has no entrance on to it. But there is virtually nothing that can be done about it in the existing state of the law.
He will, of course, on my advice, appeal to the Secretary of State under the appropriate section by way of memorial, on the ground of hardship. Perhaps I can put in a word on that now. I hope that his case will be regarded with great sympathy.
That is not the only case. I have known some other very hard cases. I have raised the matter on a number of occasions in my time in the House. We soldier on, and sympathy is always expressed, but nothing is ever done because it would mean a slight amendment of the law. The new clause in effect replaces "may" by "shall": it makes it compulsory.
I suppose that this time I shall be told that this is a Bill for tidying up loose ends after the churning up of 1972 and that some other Bill would be more


appropriate. Always in the past there have been temporising answers, but we still have these desperate cases.
I know that the advance payments code may seem to put a term at some time in the future on these hard cases, but the advance payments code was applied to rural areas at different times. I am in part responsible for that myself. The late Mr. Mitchison—later Lord Mitchison—introduced the advance payments code in the form of a Private Member's Bill. I and other Members with rural constituencies where the frontages code applied had long pointed out the risk of extreme hardship for somebody with a very long frontage to a new house having to put down a very large sum of money, with no guarantee that the road would ever be made up, because the advance payments code did not impose on local authorities a duty to make up the road within any period of time. We represented—and it was accepted—that it should be applied to rural districts on application by the rural district authority.
The result has been that, as a rural district began to be built up, it was advantageous to have the advance payments code applied to it. It has been progressive, and there are many areas where the hangover from the old system before advance payments is still great and will continue for many years. These are the people who may be very gravely disadvantaged by the working of Section i76 as it stands.
I know that in the Highways Act there is a facility—it resulted from an amendment which I drafted—for a local highway authority to make a contribution to the cost of a flank frontage. Quite often a local highway authority will do it, but it is a very modest contribution and does not begin to meet the problem. It can still leave somebody with £1,000 or £2,000 to pay. In many cases it can be paid only by mortgaging the house.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give this matter careful and sympathetic consideration and that he will accept the clause now or, if he finds any fault with its drafting, introduce it in the other place. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not say that this is not quite the right sort of Bill. I believe that the clause is in order and within the scope of the Bill. An amendment

has been put down to make the appropriate change in the Long Title.
If the will is there, it can be done. It will be only a very slight nuisance to local authorities, but it will prevent any case of gross hardship during the long transitional period before the advance payments code takes over altogether.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I support the new clause because I believe that it will remedy what is today a very considerable injustice and a very considerable hardship to many people. It will remedy an injustice whereby those who have a frontage to a private road which is taken over by a local authority are liable for the expense of street works to that private road in relation to that frontage. In that term, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) has pointed out, the flank frontage must be included.
According to my researches, this archaic system dates from the code of 1892, inasmuch as those who regularly use such roads but have little or no frontage to them, under this arrangement, do not necessarily fulfil their obligations to contribute to their maintenance unless the local authority resolves to take degree of benefit into account. As my hon. and learned Friend says, the new clause makes it clear that if this system can be changed—as I hope it will be—the greater or lesser degree of benefit derived by premises will be the most important factor in settling apportionment of costs, and the other main consideration will be the benefit of any work already done by the owners or occupiers of such premises. That is already in the 1959 Act. In other words, the purpose of the new clause is to make these criteria mandatory on the local authority rather than to leave them merely permissive, as is now the case.
This is an eminently sensible and fair proposal for the amendment of the law. I believe that it would greatly benefit many local authorities by providing them with a precise criterion for determining the apportionment of expenses in making up private roads.
From my own experience with local authorities I believe that there is a great tendency for them not to use the statutory permissive powers. It is very much easier not to do so, because of the difficulties which sometimes arise when permissive


powers are contested. But this is a matter of some importance, and it is worth detaining the House on it for a few moments this afternoon. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to give this matter sympathetic consideration and to accept the eminently sensible new clause.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The House has heard two very persuasive speeches. I know that it will not please the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) if I say that I listened to him with sympathy, because the use of that word will give him a premonition of what is to follow. However, I mean it genuinely. Some years ago I represented a more rural constituency than I represent now and I frequently came across the kind of problem to which the hon. and learned Member has referred.
I recognise that in Section 176 of the Highways Act there is a deal of rough and ready justice in that people are charged according to the length of their frontage when a private road is to be made up by a highways authority. On the other hand, a provision was rightly included in the Act giving local authorities the power, if they think it just, to resolve in settling the apportionment of charges to have regard to the greater or lesser degree of benefit to be derived by any premises from the street works and to the amount and value of any work already done by owners or occupiers of any premises.
A discretionary power for local authorities does exist and it is not accurate to suggest that it is hardly ever used. Many authorities take into account the degree of benefit involved. A number of authorities in the Midlands and in large conurbations have used Section 176 and the powers of Section 210 to modify the effect of a frontage This is not as rare as is sometimes claimed.
There may be complaints about authorities operating in the area about which the hon. and learned Member spoke, though I hope that that is not the case. In the light of existing legislation it ought to be possible to see that this matter is resolved without the change proposed by the hon. and learned Member.
The new clause is unprecedented. No such provision has ever been enacted and if the House were to accept it, we should have to do so without Any consultation with representatives of county councils, which are the street works authorities, or with the property-owning interests which would be involved in an amendment of the works code.
It would not be appropriate to include a new clause, on what is essentially a highways matter, in this Bill. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member can complain that the House does not consider highways and traffic matters frequently. We seem always to he discussing issues connected with highways. There are other opportunities for Ole hon. and learned Member to make the point he has made so eloquently today.
A power already exists for local authorities to take account of benefit derived and the right action for those who complain about rough and ready justice in individual circumstances is to make their complaints to local authorities, rather than to attempt to obtain an amendment of the law.
I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), but this is the only position we can take in the light of what we understand to be the situation.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The Minister's reply, though not unexpected, is disappointing, not least because I have heard it on a number of occasions in the past.
Section 176 of the Highways Act, which confers the discretionary power, was introduced because it was felt that a strict frontage measurement system could lead to great injustice. Indeed, on almost every occasion it is used it leads to some degree of injustice.
It is a very haphazard system. One house may have a garden alongside it while another has only a narrow frontage but a very long garden, giving it a considerable flanking frontage. This difference can make a considerable difference to the amount of road charges to be paid.
It is easy to call this system rough justice. I call it rough injustice. We are talking a little academically about this matter, but it is extremely important for


the people who receive enormous bills. They want to know why Parliament does not put it right. It is not fair. It is ridiculous that someone should pay two or three times as much as his neighbours because his garden is a slightly different shape. The situation can affect cottages as easily as large houses.
The problem may not have been so important when road charges were comparatively small, but now they are astronomical. I know that the discretion is available to local authorities and no doubt it is used in the Midlands, but it is not used in most of the rest of the country and, I am sorry to say that it is certainly not used in the rural areas of which I have had experience.
I am not worried about the lack of consultation with county councils. This issue has been canvassed for the past 20 years and they know all about it. None of them will ask to be compelled and I can tell the Minister now what consultations would reveal. The county councils would be against the proposal, but not strongly. They will not ask Parliament to compel them to do it. They have the power already but they do not often wish to use it.
This is a matter with which Parliament could and should deal. We often discuss Road Traffic and Local Government Acts, but highway matters cannot be raised on those measures. How often do we get a Highways Act? The basic Act is still that passed in 1959—quite a long time ago.
I am sorry that the Minister has decided not to accept the new clause. I am consoled only by the fact that he may repent and that there is still the opportunity in another place for him to acquire merit and introduce the new clause there. I hope that he does not dismiss this problem. It is a matter of concern to many people.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

DIRECT WORKS

Any power to execute works which is conferred on a local authority by this or any other enactment may only be exercised if—

(a) direct works undertakings are treated as trading services,

(b) tendering is adopted for 80 per cent. of the value of all works,
(c) all costs are accounted for, including the costs of central administration, subcontracting, materials, plant and labour.'— [Mr. Speed.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss new Clause 7—[Commercial and trading activities of local authorities.]
We may also discuss the following amendments:

No. 184, in title, line 7, after 'areas', insert:
'and otherwise to modify those powers'.

No. 186, in title, line 9, after 'enactments', insert:
to extend the powers of local authorities to carry on business'.

Mr. Speed: When we were debating, on Clause 26, the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State made it clear that the clause was effectively a consolidation measure which did not extend powers in the way certain hon. Members and people outside had envisaged on Second Reading. I was pleased to hear that and I underlined it so that the world would know what the clause was about. I tried to suggest to the Government that it would be helpful to have a much clearer and tighter control of accounting for direct works undertakings. The Chair quite properly ruled me out of order and I was not able to complete what I wanted to say.
In the new clause, we intend to incorporate, in a general and non-controversial way, the recommendations of the report of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. It is nearly a year since that report was published and it is nearly two years since the work on it was completed. The various debates in recent weeks on local government and direct labour have shown that on this side of the House at least, and outside in the building and contracting industries, as well as in local government itself, there is a wide understanding and appreciation of the fact that the present accounting procedures based upon various manuals in the past are, to put it mildly, totally inadequate.


Therefore, we seek to incorporate some of the main suggestions that came out of the CIPFA report: first, that direct works undertakings should be treated as trading services, which is one of the main recommendations that CIPFA made: secondly, that tendering is adopted for 80 per cent. of the value of all works, and this is because we believe that competitive tendering is the best method, as the ratepayer will have to foot the bill for any mistakes, and by this method he can be sure that he is getting value for money.
Where this level of competition in tendering does not take place, one is bound to have the gravest suspicions. From time to time the Government have argued—and, indeed, I have been inclined to agree—that there are direct works undertakings which may be efficient. The trouble is that none of us really knows, because there is not a proper national accounting base, and so at best it can be only a hunch or a "guesstimate".
I am not a chartered accountant, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson), who is, will support me when I say that there are different ways in which accounts can be presented, and particularly that in direct trading all kinds of overheads can be lost in the accounts to give all kinds of different figures. CIPFA was composed of experts, including the director of finance for Newhaven, the assistant director of finance for Reading, the assistant city treasurer of Salford, the assistant secretary of CIPFA himself, the assistant treasurer of Sheffield and the assistant county treasurer of Gloucestershire. I do not know, nor do I care, what are the political persuasions of those gentlemen, but I do know that they are experts in this matter. They are not elected members with an axe to grind, and they expressed a view with which I found myself in considerable agreement.
Looking at the component parts of this clause—that direct works undertakings should be treated as trading services, that tendering should be adopted for 80 per cent. of the value of all works, and that there should be proper accountability for costs, including the costs of central administration, sub-contracting, materials, plant and labour—we are not seeking in any way to abolish direct labour. We wish to ensure that wherever it is carried

out it is done on a proper accountable basis. Any outside contractor or building firm which is efficient and which is to get the sort of work that local authorities put out will accept that such work has to be done in competition. We want to see efficient contracting in all these works because at the end of the day all of us as ratepayers and taxpayers will reap the benefit thereby.
I have little hope that the Government will accept the clause because in certain circumstances it could be regarded as controversial. I suppose, certainly by some hon. Members below the Gangway, and I realise that it is probably not precedented. Nevertheless, it would be valuable to have the Under-Secretary's views. I well know the views of the Minister for Housing and Construction and we have not shifted him one inch. I hope that with a new Secretary of State and a new Under-Secretary we shall get a more sympathetic response.
A departmental committee has been set up to look into these matters, but that departmental committee is concerned with only one side of the problem and comprises no outside contractors or professional advisers at all. We do not know when the committee will report, and obviously the Government cannot commit themselves to the report in advance.
5.15 p.m.
I would happily drop the new clause if the Under-Secretary could say that as an interim measure—and I stress this before the report comes out—he will commend and recommend the CIPFA recommendations to the local authorities. If he cannot do that, we shall continue to raise this matter. I must tell him that many of the new local authorities which were elected last Thursday, with which I am having discussions, intend to adopt the main recommendations of the CIPFA report. I certainly want to see that come about.
May I say a brief word or two on new Clause 7 which is being discussed with this clause. It is 180 degrees the other side of the coin. Just as I shall be surprised if the Government accept my new clause, I shall be equally surprised if they accept new Clause 7. I am sure that the Under-Secretary, who is not partial in the matter, will reject both proposed new clauses. New Clause 7 is


where we were a few months back, on one heady evening when we had the Chrysler debate and things went wrong and the Government lost, and then we had the debate on the West Midlands County Council Bill. The new clause paraphrases all that the Labour West Midlands County Council sought to do. This is as objectionable to us now as it was on that evening when the House rejected the West Midlands County Council Bill. It is objectionable for a number of reasons.
I am a great believer in local government but in local government doing what it ought to do. That is certainly not extending its activities into a wide range of trading operations without proper accountability and certainly with the prospect of losing money, extending its powers and costing more money; and there is not enough expertise going spare among the officers and councillors that they can extend their activities in this way and thereby ignore some of the desperate problems which local and indeed central government face.
I am a great believer in efficient officers and councillors, but they have enough to do without moving into the realms of trading activities, engaging
in any undertaking which, in their opinion, is likely to achieve a profit over any period of five years ".
That is as wide a power as one could wish to see.
There were two principal factors in the elections last week, in which there were local as well as national factors. One was the sale of council houses and the other was direct labour and municipal trading. In places such as the West Midlands, Birmingham, Dudley and elsewhere, the electorate have decisively rejected any extension of local government powers in this way. They believe that they should concentrate their abilities and efforts on doing what they should be doing at the moment. Therefore, we on this side of the House totally reject the concept of new Clause 7. Since it is unprecedented and apparently controversial, I have no doubt that the Government also will do so.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: I wish to speak to new Clause 7 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) and myself.

Reference has been made in this debate and in an earlier debate to the events of last Thursday. It may seem, after the events of last Thursday, an inappropriate time to reintroduce a provision about municipal enterprise. However, if the new Conservative-controlled councils are as opposed to municipal enterprise as their leagues are in this House, surely there is no harm in passing such a clause because it is purely permissive and presumably they would not wish to take advantage of these powers.
Not all Conservatives on local authorities are so opposed to the idea of municipal trading as some Conservative Members. For example, many of our seaside resorts which have not been controlled by the Labour Party are considerable exponents of municipal trading. Historically, much municipal enterprise was initiated and conducted by politicians whose political evaluations and ideas were far from creeping municipal Marxism, the phrase used by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) in an earlier debate on this subject. That is a concept which obsesses the minds of Conservative Members.
I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. As the hon. Member for Ashford rightly said, we have rehearsed the arguments several times in the past year. The wording of the clause antedates the West Midlands Bill. It is word for word the wording of the Ten-Minute Bill which I introduced in April last year. I was given permission to introduce it by a considerable majority of Members.
The clause is permissive and not mandatory. The control of municipal enterprise is firmly in the hands of democratically elected councils and, therefore, ultimately in the control of the electorates which they represent. In an earlier debate this afternoon the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), was concerned to emphasise the power that correctly lies with the electorate in the ballot box. It is ironical that when the gas and electricity industries were taken into public national ownership after the war, the criticism heard from the then Opposition was that democratic local control was being replaced by bureaucratic, national, centralised control. How attitudes change!
The charge that municipal enterprise means a heavier burden on the hard-pressed ratepayer is neither supported by experience not encouraged or supported by the wording of the clause. I have no intention of going through a long list of examples of successful municipal enterprise. I merely refer to Luton Airport in my constituency, which has been a highly successful example of municipal enterprise. It is once more making a profit despite the trauma of the lapse of Court Line, which so exercised the mind of the House some 18 months ago.
The clause is designed specifically to encourage municipal enterprise so that it will not be a burden on the ratepayer. Reference has already been made to the wording of subsection (1)—namely,
likely to achieve a profit over any period of five years.
In subsection (2) it is specifically provided that any losses would not qualify for rate support grant. Subsection (3) provides for the proper auditing of accounts.
I remind the House of the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Report regarding the limitations of the powers of local authorities. The report was very much in favour of their removal. I would have hoped that its recommendations would be followed in that respect and in others.
It is surely an absurd, costly and outdated procedure for local authorities to have to seek special powers to conduct municipal enterprises. It displays a contempt for the ability of local councillors and those who elect them and a distrust of the operation of the democratic principle. We hear much of the need for power to be at a level that is understood, comprehended and participated in, yet in many ways the powers of local authorities are inhibited. The authorities carry the can for a great deal for which they are not responsible, for matters which are not even within their power. The authorities should be given every possible encouragement to be enterprising and to show initiative, and the clause is intended to be a contribution to that end.

Mr. George Rodgers: I am pleased to add my support to new Clause 7, which has been so ably spoken to

by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson). I am surprised that there should be apparent opposition from Opposition Members. Joseph Chamberlain would turn in his grave were he aware that his political successors were abandoning municipal enterprise on such a scale. I honestly think that the clause should appeal to all who are prepared to do rather more than pay lip service to local democracy and local enterprise.
I believe that the terms of the clause would enable the resources of local authorities to be utilised on behalf of the local community and, at the same time, provide an additional source of revenue to relieve the stricken ratepayer. For far too long local authorities have been expected to provide projects that cost a great deal to the local community, even though they are highly desirable. For example, public baths, public parks, and public libraries are very expensive to construct and maintain. Private enterprise is not interested in such ventures. That is understandable as its purpose is to secure a profit, and there is no profit in the undertakings that I have mentioned.
It seems sensible that we should introduce a balancing factor to enable local authorities to provide a useful service and, at the same time, to improve the financial standing of municipal treasurers. I should like to see the abilities of town hall surveyors and solicitors made available to the public—the public who in a real sense contribute to the cost of providing town hall officers.
I see no good reason for machines and equipment belonging to local authorities not being hired out to local residents. The staffs of parks and gardens, who include some of the most able horticulturalists in the country, could well set up stalls and provide a service to the public in their district. Perhaps that would have the effect of combating the potato famine.
It has already been demonstrated that in many sectors municipal trading has been enormously successful. The seaside resorts make a fortune from deck chairs. Many authorities are in public markets, and many provide restaurant facilities. The urban district council of which I was once a member was very


successful as a result of manufacturing and selling a fertilizer which emerged from the local sewerage works. This brought a benefit to the local rate fund.
The clause seeks to extend the area of trading. It contains substantial protection for those who are concerned to prevent the abuse by local authorities of their right to undertake business ventures. Any such enterprise would be subjected to annual audit. No public money would be at risk.
The likelihood is that a programme of municipal enterprise would generate local prosperity. It is self-evident from previous successes that it is a valuable form of trading. It also offers advantages to those who seek to attract people with business efficiency and know-how to serve on local government. I am confident that this modest clause would secure widespread approval throughout the country as well as in the Chamber.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson), but as I listened to him make the case for his new Clause 7, I felt compelled to intervene in the debate although I had not originally intended to do so.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) said in introducing his new Clause 4, speaking at the same time against new Clause 7, local authorities already have a great many duties and are finding it extremely difficult to carry them out. There are many duties which they and they alone can perform and, if they were to concentrate on those matters in which they alone have responsibility, they would already have enough to do.
The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) told us that subsection (1) of his new clause, which provides that any enterprise must be likely to make a profit within five years, guarantees that no ratepayers' money could be involved. I thought that naöve in the extreme. Speaking as a chartered accountant, I cannot think of anyone whoever set up in business without thinking that he would be likely to make profits, yet this year alone thousands of business people will go bankrupt and firms will go into liquidation because, although they hoped and expected to make a profit, they found

on getting the business under way that they were wrong.
We should never forget the difference between those people and the local authorities and councillors who would be covered by new Clause 7. Those to whom I have just referred will lose either their own money or the money of people whom they persuaded to back them and who went into the enterprise with their eyes open, knowing that they were taking a commercial risk. The people covered by new Clause 7, on the other hand, the local councillors, would know that at the end of the day, if their ideas were wrong, the loss would not be theirs but it would be the ratepayers' money which would disappear.
I am, therefore, astonished at the suggestion that that small subsection in the new clause would protect ratepayers from loss. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman imagines that those councils which will decide to go into business are likely not to be as naöve and wet behind the ears commercially as he obviously is, but I can only say that I regard his new clause as no sort of defence against large losses.

Mr. George Rodgers: Will not the hon. Gentleman concede that there is abundant evidence that local authorities which are already trading have been enormously successful and have, in fact, contributed to the rate fund?

Mr. Parkinson: I do not want to make a long speech, but I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Luton, East talk about Luton Airport. I used to live under the airport flight path, so I admit to having rather jaundiced views about it, but if Luton Airport has made an overall profit from the date of its inception up to now I shall be amazed. I should be delighted to hear it, but I suspect that, even if it has now started to make a profit, overall, since it began, there have been some thundering great losses totted up for the local ratepayers to bear.

Mr. Clemitson: I cannot go back to the year dot, but all I know is that for a considerable number of years the airport has made a profit. My point is that, despite the lapse of Court Line Limited, that shining star of private enterprise, the Luton local authority, which


until last Thursday was Labour-controlled, has very successfully attracted business to the airport, and the airport has in a very short time started making a profit again.

Mr. Parkinson: As we are busy exchanging a lack of information with one another, I see no great point in pursuing the argument, but I have a strong suspicion that, if the losses and profits were totted up since they went into the business, the ratepayers of Luton would find themselves on the minus side. However, the hon. Gentleman does not know whether I am right or wrong, and we could spend a long time discussing the matter without coming any nearer the truth at the end of the day.
There have been references to Court Line. I do not see the lapse of Court Line as an argument for extending municipal trading. On the contrary, I see it as a warning about the dangers of going into commercial enterprise. I see the Court Line affair as an illustration of how easy it is to lose money in ventures which, in the words of subsection (1), look likely to make a profit within five years.
Local authorities already have huge obligations, and day after day now they are finding it difficult to meet their present obligations. If local councillors have any spare energy, they should concentrate on carrying out their statutory obligations, without entering into ventures which are "likely to achieve a profit" within five years. All the indications are that the new clause would be a recipe for increased rates and further dissatisfaction among ratepayers. One thing which the country is not short of, I suggest, is people who are prepared to go into business and take up ventures if there is a profit to be made.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall address myself to subsection (1) of new Clause 7, which would provide that any council
may carry on any business or engage in any undertaking which, in their opinion, is likely to achieve a profit over any period of five years".
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) spoke of those who are willing to go into business and take risks. I shall speak about those who are already in business and who take risks. What opportunity would there be for someone who ran a taxi service, a grocery shop, a newsagent's shop

or a tobacconist's shop—or, for example, someone working for the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society in my constituency—if he realised that the local council could set up in one of these businesses or services and run it without making a profit for a period of up to five years, although it was thought that there might be opportunity to make a profit five years further forward?
No local authority in the country has been elected on the ground that it should take powers of that kind, and I hope that the Government will resist new Clause 7.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who moved his new Clause 4, challenged me, so to speak, to express new views on the subject of direct labour departments. I do not imagine that he expected me to do that, especially in the context of this debate, and, although I listened with interest to all that was said, I see two reasons why it would be a great mistake for me to give any definitive views either on new Clause 4 or on new Clause 7, the clause presented by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) and for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers).
The Bill is composed of provisions which are precedented and accepted, and to accept either of the new clauses would be to accept provisions which are unprecedented and therefore outside the scope of the Bill as presented to the House. I shall, however, comment briefly on both new clauses.
New Clause 4, as the hon. Member for Ashford made clear, has been tabled in response to recommendations in a report published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy on direct works undertakings accounting. The main recommendations in the CIPFA report were that local authority direct labour organisations should be treated as a trading service, that competitive tendering should be adopted for the great majority of major works contracts, and that charges to spending committees should be based on valuation rather than on cost of work done. As I have said, it is obvious that recommendations of this kind would be unprecedented and, therefore, could not find a natural place in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Ashford referred to the working party which my right hon. Friend has set up to study this matter. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, I must emphasise that it is a complicated and difficult subject, and technical issues are involved. It is simply not possible to accept a new clause of this kind at the present stage or, indeed, until my right hon. Friend has had opportunity to consider the report of the working party and come to a decision upon it. If the hon. Gentleman had not suspected that already, I think that he might have gained the same impression from the CIPFA Report itself, for it recognises that there would
almost certainly be practical difficulties. In particular, the use of the valuation-based figures rather than actual cost will affect the charging of service accounts and in turn affect the calculating of specific grant, housing subsidies, loan sanctions, etc.
Inevitably, there will be problems should it be decided to act upon the basis of the CIPFA Report, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it would be wrong for me to attempt in any way to prejudice or anticipate any statement or decision of policy which my right hon. Friend would need to make on the issue.
The new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley, deals with municipal trading. As I have explained before, it would be unprecedented in local law and therefore lies outside the scope of the Bill. But I want to give my hon. Friends a certain amount of assurance and to do that I can do no better than to quote my predecessor, who said:
local authorities should be given as much independence and freedom as possible—and that that independence and freedom should be given a purpose and a means to support that purpose.—[Official Report, 26th January 1976; Vol. 904, c. 165.]
The Government are not unsympathetic to the principle of municipal trading, but we believe that trading powers should be extended only where appropriate. That must mean that the locality should benefit from the provision of the services proposed and that the local authority is the right body to provide it. Where municipal trading would be in competition with private training, accounts must balance year by year and

there should be no subsidising of that trading by ratepayers. Such subsidies would be unfair to ratepayers and other trades in the area. The new clause fails to meet those provisos.
In a period of retrenchment in local government expenditure and of close scrutiny of expenditure by local authorities, it would be inappropriate to indulge in such extensions of their powers. For those reasons I must reject both new clauses.

Mr. Speed: On the basis that new Clause 7 is equally unacceptable to the Government, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

APPLICATION OF PART II

'(1) The provisions of this Part of this Act, except this section, shall come into force in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) If the Act of 1847 is in force in the area of a district council, the council may resolve that the provisions of this Part of this Act, other than this section, are to apply to the relevant area; and if the council do so resolve those provisions shall come into force in the relevant area on the day specified in that behalf in the resolution (which must not be before the expiration of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the resolution is passed).

In this subsection 'the relevant area', in relation to a council, means—

(a) if the Act of 1847 is in force throughout the area of the council, that area; and
(b) if the Act of 1847 is in force for part only of the area of the council, that part of that area.

(3) A council shall not pass a resolution in pursuance of the foregoing subsection unless they have—

(a) published in two consecutive weeks, in a local newspaper circulating in their area, notice of their intention to pass the resolution; and
(b) serve a copy of the notice, not later than the date on which it is first published in pursuance of the foregoing paragraph, on the council of each parish or community which would be affected by the resolution or, in the case of such a parish which has no parish council, on the chairman of the parish meeting.

(4) If after a council has passed a resolution in pursuance of subsection (2) of this section the Act of 1847 comes into force for any part of the area of the council for


which it was not in force when the council passed the resolution, the council may pass a resolution in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section in respect of that part as if that part were included in the relevant area for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section.'.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Amendments Nos. 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 85, 146, 147, 153, 155, 157, 168, 170, 173, 177 and 180.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I hope that the clause and the long list of consequential amendments will be more acceptable than some of the clauses under discussion previously.
The clauses which now make up Part II of the Bill relate both to hackney carriages licensed under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and to private hire vehicles, introducing for the first time on a national scale powers for control of private hire vehicles. The provisions relating to each category of vehicle referred to are inextricably entwined with those relating to the other category and an appointed day procedure is perhaps inappropriate.
A district council should have a discretion whether to adopt the provisions of Part II. It should not be able to pick and choose between the various provisions of Part II, because to retain such powers of choice might lead to a multiplicity of different patterns of control, a situation which is potentially confusing and misleading to the public and to the taxi and hire trades. Furthermore, since Part II is ancillary to the 1847 Act, a district council should adopt the Part only in areas within the district in which the 1847 Act is in force. This means that the expression "district" must have a restricted meaning, so that it refers only to that area within a council's area within which the 1847 Act is in force, including the whole of a council's area. The definition is provided in Amendment No. 171 to Clause 71. Before the Local Government Act 1972, the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 was in force in all boroughs and urban districts and in some rural districts. Since the 1972 Act some districts have, in exercising the powers conferred by paragraph 25 of Schedule 14

to the 1972 Act, extended the 1847 Act throughout their district. About one-fifth of districts have taken this action. The others have left the 1847 Act in force in those areas in which it was previously in force.
The new clause provides that in those districts where the 1847 Act is in force throughout the district, the district council will be able to adopt Part II to apply throughout the district, or not to adopt Part II, as it see fit; and if the 1847 Act is in force for only part of the area of the council, the council may adopt Part II, as it sees fit; and if the 1847 decide not to adopt Part II. Furthermore, if, after adopting Part II for that part of the area for which the 1847 Act is then in force, a council at a later date by resolution extends the application of the Act of 1847 throughout its area, it may if it wishes, under subsection (4), further resolve that Part II shall also extend to have effect throughout that part of the area newly controlled under the Act of 1847.
Subsection (3) of the new clause specifies the procedure to be followed by a district council in publicising its intention to make a resolution to adopt Part II.

Mr. John Horam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for explaining the clause, because I totally failed to grasp its meaning in its original form. I am not much clearer about it now, but that is not surprising. because it usually takes me five readings to understand such matters, such is my difficulty in grasping legal jargon.
From the title of the new Clause 1 understand that it indicates how Part II of the Bill shall be applied. That part of the Bill comprises a series of clauses from Clause 35 to Clause 71 which provide for the control of the cab trade. My hon. Friend should he congratulated on his initiative in tabling the new clause. Many hon. Members fail to introduce a single new clause to the statute book throughout their careers but my hon. Friend has achieved success with no fewer than 38 new clauses in the teeth of Government opposition. Perhaps he should now enjoy his hour of triumph.
The consequence of the way in which the new clauses were introduced in the


Standing Committee is that there has been no time for proper consultation between the Government and the interested parties in the cab trade. I cannot speak on behalf of all the interested parties, but I can speak on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union, by which I am sponsored in the House. The union has a considerable interest in the cab trade, as it represents many cab drivers both in London and in the provinces. It is very concerned that so far there has been no consultation between my hon. Friend and the union or between the Government and the union.
The legislation affects a service which is of great importance to those who use it and the many people who make their livelihood by it. We cannot put it on the statute book without the normal consultations. Therefore, I have appealed to the Government, in the shape of my right hon. Friends the Lord President of the Council and the Home Secretary, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South asking them to give sufficient time for the normal processes of consultation. I have received both verbal and written assurances that such time will be allowed. It is only fair that it should be.
I assure the Government that we do not have a hostile attitude to this legislation. The union has been pressing for many years for just such an opportunity. It is rather bemused that after years of inaction by the Government the legislation is being rushed through and there is almost no time to examine it in detail, deciding the rights and wrongs of detailed points.
In the past the Government have said that we could not have this sort of legislation, because they needed time to think about it and Government time was always at a premium. Suddenly we find that we have only a few weeks to consider important legislation. The series of clauses in question will affect a service in which the union has a vital concern as it represents people who work in it and who use it.
I am glad that I have received assurances about the normal processes of consultation. I shall do all that I can to see that they are carried out. I hope that the Government will do all in their power to slow down the passage of the legislation to allow that consultation

before the Committee stage in another place and possibly further consideration here.
Many people have worked hard for many years to reach the point at which we now find ourselves. Their legitimate concerns cannot be brushed aside in an understandable desire to get something on to the statute book quickly for what may be other reasons.

Mr. Ben Ford: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) in complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on bringing forward Part II, though some may feel that it would have been better to leave it for a Home Office Bill to be produced in due course, which would possibly be more apposite. Incidentally, I notice that a Home Office Minister is to reply to the debate.
Nevertheless, we have the clauses before us, and I add my plea for ample time for consultations. Representatives of the National Federation of Taxicab Associations have complained to me that they had little or no opportunity to consult on amendments that might well be made to Part. II. I spoke to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department just before the debate and was told that there are 15 whole days before the Committee stage is due to begin in the House of Lords, and that consultations may take place in that time. That may or may not be sufficient time.
Sitting in the Gallery listening to the debate are people with 30 or more years' experience of operating and studying the 1847 Act, because it is their livelihood. There is an enormous depth of experience which can be brought to bear on these matters and of which the Government should take advantage.
Clause 56 says:
No person, being the driver of a hackney carriage licensed by a district council, and undertaking for any hirer a journey ending outside the district and in respect of which no fare was agreed before the hiring was effected…".
Besides talking about a fare in that clause we are talking about a scale of charges. That can be agreed without a total fare necessarily being agreed at the beginning of a journey.
Clause 57 seems, for the purposes of hackney hire, to be completely impracticable. It says:
the fare or charge shall be calculated from the point at which the hirer commences his journey.
That is practicable for the cruising taxicab but not for a hackney hire vehicle which can be hired only from its base and may have two, three or more miles to travel to the point at which the hirer commences his journey. It would tend to distort charges if they were made upon this basis and cause a complaint of inequity by prospective hirers.
I should like to see a provision that when exercising its powers under Clause 61, dealing with taximeters in private hire vehicles, a district council should provide and cause to be affixed within the vehicle, in such position and manner as to be plainly and distincly visible at all times, a notice which would indicate that the fares on the meter are not controlled or fixed by that council. There should be a penalty upon anybody who removes or fails to display the notice or alters it with intent to mislead.
Time is running out, so I shall not pursue the matter further. I repeat my plea for adequate time for consultation on an important series of clauses introduced in Committee. This is an important Bill, and the question of consultation deserves to be treated with all seriousness.

Mr. Michael Morris: The House owes a debt to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for tabling the original new clauses which now form Part II. After some discussion with him, I was happy to associate my name with them and to support him in Committee.
We should take on board the point about consultation, but the hon. Members for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) and Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) should recognise that the problem of the taxi trade has been with us for many generations—certainly for longer than I have been in politics, and I suspect for longer than a number of Labour Members have been in politics. This problem has been with us for many years. I do not intend any reflection on the Minister when I

say that over the years the Home Office under successive Governments has been dilatory in the extreme in not getting to grips with the problem. Therefore, if by means of this non-controversial Bill we manage to put on the statute book the makings of some sense in taxi-cab law, we shall achieve a significant advance.
I can say from my own experience that there has been more consultation on this provision than there was on the Rating Caravan Sites Act (Lords) Act, on which there were no consultations with any of the interests concerned.
Obviously the hon. Member for Leicester, South did not produce all these clauses out of his head. They came from a well-known source which has behind it great experience in these matters. There must be consultation with interested parties and we are grateful to the Government for having accepted that these provisions should go on the statute book.
I add the proviso that a period of 15 or 50 days can easily extend to a period of 60 or 70 days. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will confirm that these provisions will get on the statute book. Taxi law is important and, furthermore, there are many other provisions in the Bill that are vital to local government—provisions for which local government have been waiting for a considerable time.
We hope that the clause will be accepted. It will give a necessary degree of flexibility to local government and will provide safeguards to ensure national standards to which any good operator will wish to adhere. Therefore, we very much welcome the clause and the consequential amendments.

6.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): I should like to take the opportunity to state the Government's position on the clause—a position that also applies to the whole of Part II of the Bill.
When introduced the Bill did not contain any provisions relating to taxis and private hire cars. This was quite deliberate.
The Government have been aware for some time of a widespread demand for a review of legislation relating to the control of taxis in areas of England and Wales outside London, and for this control to be


extended to include the private hire car trade. At present, control of taxis can be exercised in England, outside London, and in Wales, under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. There is no general legislation for the control of private hire cars, but a number of local authorities have taken powers in local legislation to extend or modify the powers of the Act of 1847 in respect of taxis and to introduce new controls over the operation of private hire cars.
Many Members will know that the Government have been preparing a consultative document on the control of taxis and private hire cars. Our intention had been that, when this document had been prepared and issued, we should hold consultations on the matter with the local authority associations' trade unions, the National Federation of Taxi Associations and any other interested organisations. Following these consultations, the Government had it in mind to prepare their own legislation which they hoped would be completely up to date and would take account of the many developments which have taken place both in technology and in society since the Town Police Clauses Act was passed in 1847. It was because we thought that this was the best course of action that we advised the Standing Committee not to include the provisions proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on taxis and private hire cars in this Bill.
As the House knows, the Committee did not accept our advice on this matter and the Bill now includes a very substantial number of provisions relating to taxis and private hire cars. In view of this new situation, we have assisted my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South, in the preparation of amendments to these provisions which are being considered this afternoon. This assistance has been without prejudice to the point of principle and perhaps I should take this opportunity to make our position clear.
The Government still take the view that the preferable way to proceed would have been by means of Government legislation following discussions on the basis of a consultative document. This would have enabled us to prepare coherent and comprehensive legislative proposals. Even with the technical improvements that are being discussed this afternoon, the present provisions are necessarily some-

thing of a patchwork. If, however, it is the will of the House that these provisions should be incorporated in the Bill, the Government are prepared to accept them.
I sympathise very much with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam). He emphasised the need for time for proper consultation. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South, in moving the clause, apparently did not feel that any consultation was necessary. Yet again, the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) feared that the consultations would be too long protracted. Therefore, it is clear that even on the subject of consultation we have three different points of view.
I assure the House that there will be consultations. We consider it most important that there should be an opportunity to consult those organisations with an interest in this matter so that any appropriate further amendments can be made to the Bill in another place. Therefore, I take the opportunity to invite those who wish to make representations to do so as soon as possible, and interested organisations will also be invited to do the same.
Meanwhile, I shall listen carefully to the points raised by hon. Members today. I have taken particular note of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) and I shall continue to take careful note throughout the rest of the debate.

Question put and agreed to

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill

New Clause 6

PRESCRIPTION OF SIGN, &C., TO BE USED ON CERTAIN BUILDINGS

'(1) A county council may in relation to any substance likely to involve special hazard to persons engaged in normal duties of fire fighting in its area—

(a) prescribe standard uniform signs or symbols or warning notices in a form approved or prescribed by the Secretary of State clearly indicating the nature of the substance and the existence of danger to persons so engaged;
(b) by notice require the occupier of any part of any premises used for the manufacture or storage of the substance to affix, within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice, and thereafter keep in such conspicuous position or positions as


the county council may direct in or on the part of the premises used for such manufacture or storage, the appropriate sign, symbol or notice.

(2) Any person who contravenes the requirements of a county council under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 and to a daily fine not exceeding £10.'.—[Mr. Wigglesworth]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The proposal contained in the clause seeks to provide county councils with powers to require occupiers of premises used for the manufacture or the storage of hazardous substances to display signs on buildings indicating the nature of the substances manufactured or stored within them.
The clause is based on Section 16 of the Teesside Corporation (General Powers) Act 1971, which now applies only to that part of the county which formerly comprised the County Borough of Teesside. The Cleveland County Council would find such a provision as this of great benefit throughout the whole of the county and has suggested to me that other county councils would also benefit by the inclusion of this clause. That is why I have tabled the clause.
There are a number of precedents in local authority Acts for the form of Section 16 of the Teesside Act of 1971. This would seem to support the need for the proposed clause in the interests of public safety.
The House may wonder why the Cleveland County Council and the Teesside area has a particular interest in the question of hazardous substances in premises of this nature. Anybody who knows the Cleveland county area will probably know the reason. At present the area has the largest petrochemical complex in the whole country. Indeed, it will shortly be the largest petrochemical complex in the whole of Europe, and probably in the whole of the Western world. One-third of the North Sea oil will be coming in to Teesside. Firms such as ICI Monsanto, Rohmand Hass and various other chemical firms are expanding rapidly in the area in a way which makes the mind boggle. In addition, we have the

development in the area of what by the early 1980s will be the biggest steel complex in Western Europe.
This combination of heavy industry in the area, especially that section of it concerned with petrochemicals, makes it very sensitive about hazardous substances and the danger to the public that they bring. It is for that reason that I and those of my leagues who represent constituencies in the area have taken a great interest in the scheme which has been proposed and carried through by the Cleveland County Council for the marking of vehicles transporting dangerous substances by road and rail from the area of Cleveland. The Hazardous Chemicals Scheme, known as Hazchem, has been introduced on a voluntary basis throughout the whole of the United Kingdom and has been in operation since July of last year.
Hon. Members may have noticed the labels stuck on the sides of tankers and other vehicles transporting hazardous substances on our roads. They are increasing in number. Shortly, we shall see them on virtually all tankers carrying hazardous substances throughout the United Kingdom.
The information which the labels give is vital to the emergency services in the event of an accident. When the fire service arrives at the scene of an accident where a tanker containing acid has overturned on a motorway, or where a similar accident has occurred with some toxic substance, it can be seen immediately how to handle it. A simple label of the sort that Hazchem Scheme lays down means that the fire brigade knows whether to treat the substance with water or with foam, for examp1e. It knows whether special clothing is required to keep out fumes or to keep the substance off the skin.
It is proposed that the sort of labels used in the Hazchem Scheme should also be placed upon buildings, as they are already in most parts of the Teesside area. In the event of a fire or some similar hazard in a building containing dangerous substances, the emergency services can then know how to treat it and, by being able to do so quickly and in the right way, they can avoid further danger to themselves and to the public as a result of treating the substance wrongly.
I hope that the House will support this proposal and that the Government will look upon it sympathetically. Clearly, it would be of great advantage to the fire and other emergency services and to the public at large. I commend it to the House as a further step towards ensuring public safety.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: It must be said at the outset that the Government have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's clause. For one thing, it is nice to come across a clause which falls within the Long Title of the Bill because, as my hon. Friend made clear, the clause is modelled on local legislation already in existence.
My hon. Friend referred to his own area of Teesside. Perhaps I might mention my own. The extension of the type of marking to fixed installations has been advocated by a number of fire authorities and principally by the Greater London Council, which was given similar powers in its 1975 General Powers Act. So, although it is correct for my hon. Friend to say that the clause has a special relevance in his own area, it also has relevance elsewhere. It is for that reason that the Government look upon it with every possible sympathy.
However, it is important to point out that there are one or two difficulties. The first of them concerns the marking of chemical stores in industrial circumstances where mixed goods are stored and in places such as hospitals and university laboratories. Secondly, the markings must be compatible with existing legislation.
The clause is intended, among other things, to improve the safety of firemen who are called to attend fires at premises where chemicals are stored. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that any measure by which it is proposed to improve the safety of firemen must be looked at very carefully and, if there are difficulties, as there are in the marking of stores containing hazardous substances, efforts must be made to overcome them.
Difficulties may arise when more than one chemical compound is stored in the same building, as is often the case at chemical suppliers' premises, in the chemical stores of smaller manufacturing companies or in laboratories of hospitals or places of education.
As my hon. Friend will know, this is properly a matter for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. They have a responsibility for the safety of all persons at work, including firemen. They are sympathetic to the purpose of the clause but, in the time available, have found it impossible to determine whether it would be a satisfactory means of dealing with the wide range of technical problems thrown up by fires involving chemicals and the wide range of places where they are stored. They will continue to examine the clause to see whether a satisfactory measure can be introduced at a late stage. In the meantime, it would be unwise to rush into unknown territory by accepting the clause as it stands.
The experience in my hon. Friend's area and in my own apart, there are large areas in the country in other industries where the experience is very limited. There are difficulties, and further study must be done. But I hope that as soon as possible something will be done to satisfy my hon. Friend. On that basis, I hope that he will appreciate that it is not possible for me to accept his new clause.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am very sorry that my hon. Friend cannot accept the new clause. I appreciate the problems of mixed goods in different premises. There is a similar problem with mixed goods on vehicles travelling on our roads. However, we have been able to develop a scheme which the fire services in my hon. Friend's area and in my own in Cleveland believe to be of assistance to them and to be helpful in providing further protection for the public against the danger from hazardous substances both on our roads and railways and in buildings.
On that basis, it was my hope that the experience we have from Cleveland and from London would have prompted the Government to accept this proposal and to make the provision available for councils to use. After all, it is only allowing councils to use this provision if they wish to do so. It is not mandating them to use it. It is providing powers for county councils to do so if they wish after consultation with their emergency services.
I accept that the Health and Safety Commission possibly has not had time to look at this as a national scheme.


However, what is proposed is the opportunity for county councils to introduce schemes of this kind, if that is their wish. However, I note that my hon. Friend is sympathetic to the objectives of the clause. I hope that the Government will give further consideration to it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

RATING RELIEF IN RESPECT OF FACILITIES FOR DISABLED PERSONS

'Section 45 of the General Rate Act 1967 shall have effect and shall be deemed to have had effect on and after 1st April 1976 as if at the end of the section there were added the following subsection:—
(4) Subsection (2) of this section applies to a hereditament which is a dwelling-house constructed or adapted to provide suitable accommodation for a disabled person who could otherwise be supplied with accommodation within a structure defined in subsections 1(b) and (c) above."'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With the new clause we may discuss Amendment No. 187, Title, line 9, after 'enactments', insert:
'to amend section 45 of the General Rate Act 1967'.

Mr. Speed: As this is a fairly complex legal matter, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will bear with me. I shall try to tread a simple and quick path through it.
Some time ago a case went to the House of Lords on appeal concerning a Mr. Vandyk, who bought a flat which had special features. It had been adapted for disabled people and had wide doors, special provision for steps, and so on. It was considered that he should pay the full rates on the flat, though he argued on the basis of various Acts, such as the General Rate Act 1967, in particular, and the Local Government Act 1974, which incorporates much of it, that he should not pay full rates. He won on appeal, but the case went to the House of Lords where he lost. Therefore, he has to pay the full rates.
On 18th February this year, the Under-Secretary of State's predecessor said, in

reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley):
Section 45 of the General Rate Act 1967 gives rate relief in respect of facilities for the disabled and I understand that it has been regarded as covering the kind of alterations indicated in the Question. I am aware of the recent decision by the House of Lords in a case involving that section, but my advisers have not yet had time to study the judgment and its implications. I am not therefore yet in a position to judge whether amending legislation ought to be considered."―[Official Report, 18th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 709.]
The new clause proposes such amending legislation.
In the judgment which went against Mr. Vandyk and which said that remission of rates should not be given Lord Edmund-Davies raised a dissenting voice. He quoted in the judgment, which appears in the All England Law Reports for 24th February 1976, evidence which had been given earlier in the appeal. Referring to Mr. Vandyk, he said:
'On the evidence the answer is clear. He wanted somewhere to live which was not an institution; and if he was to live outside an institution his place of abode would have to have certain physical characteristics or be capable of being adapted to have those characteristics which would enable him to receive after-care, for example, the absence of steps, doors wide enough to take a wheelchair, wall or ceiling devices to enable him to move in bed, washbasins at a convenient height, specially adapted we seats and reasonable accommodation for his personal attendant without whose help he could do very little'.
Such being the combination of reasons why the ratepayer chose
the flat
to live in. rather than some other place. and such being the purpose for which it was used, then, notwithstanding that he was, of course, minded to secure living accommodation for himself and his family, in my judgment the Lands Tribunal and the Court of Appeal were entitled to hold that he had established his right to rating relief.
That was the case made by the minority voice.
It seems to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who is the Opposition's spokesman on housing, and to many other hon. Members that if disabled people have to go into local authority or other accommodation, which imposes a burden on the State or the local authority, unless special adaptations can be made for them, as happened with Mr. Vandyk, what Lord Edmund-Davies said should be supported.
The Under-Secretary of State may say "We are still awaiting Layfield and rating reform". I appreciate that my party is committed, over the period of a Parliament, to phasing out the domestic rate. But there have been anomalies, as with caravan site rating. The public expenditure implications involved in the new clause are absolutely minimal—at least, I should hope so. The life of disabled people is difficult and bad enough and they have a great deal to cope with.
The Court of Appeal found in favour of Mr. Vandyk, a severely disabled person, but that decision was overturned by the House of Lords. It is now time for Parliament to consider the matter. The House should consider the clause sympathetically. My personal view is that Lord Edmund-Davies got it right and the others got it wrong. I wait with interest to hear the Government's view.

Mr. John Hannam: I support the new clause. I speak as someone who, with many other hon. Members, is concerned in the work of the all-party disablement committee. We feel strongly that the House of Lords judgment in the Vandyk case was a major setback to the efforts of all those who are trying to integrate disabled people into normal life and to remove them from expensive institutionalised care.
No one would disagree with the view that the days have long since gone when the severely handicapped, whether physically or mentally, were expected to reside in institutions for the whole of their lives. We now encourage by every possible means efforts to provide aids for disabled people and adapt and equip houses and flats to enable them to move into them from hospital and institutions.
If disabled children are involved, we hope to provide help for parents to carry out alterations to houses and flats to enable them to be brought up properly at home with their parents. This often involves the provision of hoists, special lavatories and special beds in ground floor rooms. People have endeavoured to secure relief from the high costs of carrying out alterations by means of relief from rates
I have a letter from a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex,
South-East (Sir B. Braine), a Mr. Masson,

South-East (Sir B. Braine), a Mr. Masson,who wrote:
I appealed against my rates due to my disability some years ago; it was never settled owing to the Vandyk case. Vandyk having won the case then lost the appeal in the House of Lords. I am now back where I started from and paying another £50 this year. I would be very pleased if you could inform me if anything is being done for the disabled in regards to high rates. You perhaps remember that I had to appeal to get planning permission to build this house which I could only get due to my disability. This house was designed by a disabled person for the use of a disabled person.
This is a typical case. In many cases with which I have dealt help has been provided through the Rowntree Trust to enable alterations to be made to buildings. It is the combination of Government assistance, through the Rowntree Trust and various disability allowances, and rating relief which has contributed to changing the fortunes of disabled people.
I hope that the Minister will have sympathy for the clause and will accept it.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I have listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Members for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and Exeter (Mr. Hannam), whose interest and involvement in the problems of the disabled is well understood and recognised. I share completely the compassion which every hon. Member naturally and properly feels for those who lack some of the capacities to enjoy life which so many of us take for granted. However, I recommend that the House should not accept the new clause.
I understand not only the feelings of hon. Members about this matter but their anxiety to take the first opportunity available to them of putting right what they believe to be an anomaly, even to the extent of tabling the clause for a Bill which is designed to incorporate in the general law provisions which have appeared in local Acts when nothing like it has even appeared in local legislation.
I should first deal with the question of the extent to which it is reasonable and fair for local taxation, that is, the rating system, to be modified in favour of particular groups. Parliament has accepted in the past that it should be modified to a certain extent, and the disabled are one of the groups where this


principle has been accepted. Rate relief for the disabled goes back further than 1967, the date of the General Rate Act, because that Act consolidated an earlier provision in the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955, But in accepting the principle, as I do, one must recognise that rate relief cannot do duty as a general benefit to the disabled, if only because not all the disabled are ratepayers.
6.30 p.m.
If we look back at what Parliament had in mind when enacting what is now Section 45 of the General Rate Act 1967, we find that the kind of structures it was thinking of—indeed, I believe these were the only examples actually mentioned—were garages for invalid carriages and workshops for the blind. In practice, because of the general nature of the provision, relief has been given more widely than this, and, for instance, there has never been any question but that where adaptations are made to dwellings to facilitate their use by the disabled and the adaptations cause the rateable value of the dwellings to be increased, the increase is ignored for the purpose of rating and the rateable value remains as if the adaptations had not been made.
Thus far it seems unarguable that what happened was an appropriate way of modifying the rating system in favour of the disabled, because it ensured that the system did not penalise a person because of his disability. Because of this disability, he had to take steps which, apart from Section 45, would have increased his rateable value and would thus have put him at a disadvantage compared with somebody who did not have that disability. Section 45 ensured that he did not pay any more rates than his able-bodied counterpart.
Although this is all quite straightforward, I must also say that the section has been the subject of a good deal of litigation because of its unclear wording, and this culminated in the case of Vandyk v. Oliver, which hon. Members have mentioned. In the course of the judgment, their lordships severely criticised the wording of the section, and for that reason alone the Government must obviously consider whether to bring

forward amending legislation, if only for the purpose of clarification.
I turn now to new Clause 8, itself, the effect of which, as has been explained, would be to overturn the House of Lords decision and give disabled people rate relief in respect of the whole of a dwelling-house in the circumstances envisaged in the clause. This would be a major extension to the rate relief as it had been previously understood to be available under Section 45, and, I suggest, it raises in an acute form the question whether it is appropriate, or even fair, to modify the rating system as far as that. On appropriateness, a whole dwelling-house is a good deal more than the extra liability which a disability imposes on anybody, and the relief would therefore extend beyond—in most cases, very considerably beyond—alterations to property actually bearing on the disability.
Equity is called in question in at least three ways. First, it puts the disabled person in a much better position than his able-bodied counterpart in relation to the local tax, instead of restoring him to parity. Second, it discriminates between one disabled person and another according to whether he needs to have adaptations made to his dwelling-house. The two are dealt with on a par if only increases in value on account of adaptations are left out of account. Third, as soon as one picks out one kind of handicapped person for a benefit which goes beyond giving him parity of treatment with people in the same position without the disability, the benefit becomes a discriminatory one between the handicapped who are ratepayers and those who are not.
My second point on the new clause I can deal with more briefly, and that is whether it is practicable to operate. I understand that Section 45 as it stands causes some difficulty for valuation officers inasmuch as they may have to form a judgment of what constitutes disablement. This is not a major difficulty but it illustrates the fact that in operating the section as it stands valuation officers have to make judgments well outside their professional expertise. If, however, the new clause were in existence, they would have to judge—which I suspect almost means guess in the circumstances—whether certain disabled people could have been supplied with accommodation


of a certain description if they had not got dwelling-houses constructed or adapted to their needs. I suggest most strongly that we cannot expect valuation officers to operate on this kind of criterion.
My third point is relatively minor and it is only to draw attention to the fact that Section 45 has already caused problems of interpretation in law, and one would not wish to add to them.
In view of the questions I have raised on the new Clause as it stands, I must recommend to the House that it should be rejected. But I certainly would not wish to end on an unhelpful, still less on an unsympathetic, note. The Government realised as soon as anybody that the House of Lords decision was a major event in the story of rate relief for the disabled and that they would need to study the judgment itself, the implications of it on the way in which Section 45 had hitherto been applied in various kinds of cases, and that they would need to consider whether legislation ought to be introduced for the sake of clarification or the removal of any inequities which would otherwise occur. We have made a good deal of progress, and I hope that it will not be long before we can announce to the House our conclusions.
We fully accept that the disabled are entitled to fair and sympathetic treatment from the rating system, and we are approaching the matter in that light. My final point must be to emphasise that it is necessary to look at the matter over a much wider range than the circumstances highlighted by the Vandyk case.

Mr. David Weitzman: It may be that the words of new Clause 8 are not satisfactory, but I want to press upon my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the vital necessity of looking at this matter very carefully from the point of view of the interests of the disabled.
After all, in the House of Lords majority judgment Lord Wilberforce described Clause 45 as "labyrinthine" and as a "minefield of obscurity". Lord Edmund-Davies, in his dissenting judgment, said that he was willing to give a wider meaning to the word "structure", which would have enabled Mr. Vandyk to claim the rate relief. He said that he did not accept the submission by the

Revenue that the accommodation had to be of an institutional character. According to him, the question was whether the authority or the organisation concerned could lawfully provide accommodation for private aftercare such as that offered in the Vandyk case. He added that in this case he believed the answer to be "yes" and that Mr. Vandyk should therefore be entitled to relief.
This is a very important matter and again I plead the cause of the disabled. It may be that the wording of new Clause 8 would not achieve the purpose. I hope, therefore, that the Government will look very carefully into the matter to see whether they cannot go further in the interests of the disabled.

Mr. Speed: I understand what the Under-Secretary of State has said, but the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) has underlined the problems of the disabled in this matter, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). A lot of people are saving considerable sums of public money by living in adapted houses in this way, for otherwise they would have to be in special accommodation.
But in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Government's sympathy and the study—I hope that it is being conducted urgently—that is going on, and taking it that this subject will not have to wait for the Layfield Report or any legislation on that—

Mr. Guy Barnett: indicated assent.

Mr. Speed: —I am gratful to the hon. Gentleman for indicating his assent—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

POWER TO ERECT FLAGPOLES ETC. ON HIGHWAYS

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 4, at end insert
and shall not be entitled to exercise those powers in respect of so much of a highway as—

(a) is carried by a bridge which a body other than the local authority and the highway authority has a duty under an enactment to maintain; or


(b) forms part of the approaches to such a bridge and is supported or protected by works or materials which a body other that the local authority and the highway authority has a duty under an enactment to maintain,
except with the consent in writing of that body.
In this subsection "bridge" includes a structure which carries a highway superimposed over a cutting".

Mr. Speaker: With it we shall discuss Government Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Mr. Barnett: As subsection (2) stands, a local authority, not being a highway authority, may not erect pylons or construct sockets in the highway without the consent of the highway authority. Where a highway is carried by a bridge maintained by the highway authority the existing position is satisfactory, but there are many cases where a bridge carrying a highway is maintained by the British Railways Board, British Waterways Board or the London Transport Executive, and some bridges are maintained by other bodies, such as harbour authorities. Such bodies are generally also responsible for the supporting embankments, retaining walls or other works. Where such bridges carry the highway in which the local authority proposes to erect flagpoles, it is right that it should first have to obtain the consent of the body responsible for the bridge.
The clause as it stands makes no such provision, but the amendments remedy this.

Mr. Michael Morris: The amendment makes enormous sense to us. Would the Minister clarify the position of tunnels and joint road-rail tunnels? While an authority would not want to erect a flagpole in a tunnel it may want to erect lamp-standards or similar poles. What would the technical position be for these types of structures?

Mr. Barnett: I prefer not to give an answer at this moment. I will see that the hon. Member is informed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2 in page 2, line 5, leave out "and a highway authority" and insert—
(2A) A highway authority or other body".

No. 3, in page 2, line 5, leave out "this" and insert "the preceding".

No. 4, in page 2, line 8, after "authority", insert" or body

No. 5, in page 2, line 10, leave out "other authority)" and insert
local authority to which the consent was given".—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 19, after possible ', insert:
'with the enjoyment of premises adjacent to the highway and '.
This amendment extends the duty imposed on a local authority by subsection (3)(a) of Clause 1 by requiring it to ensure that flagpoles are erected so as to interfere as little as is reasonably possible with the enjoyment of premises adjacent to the highway. The amendment arises from remarks of my predecessor in office in Committee when he told the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) that he was sympathetic about points on amenity, and gave an undertaking that something would be done. I hope the hon. Member will find this satisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

CONTROL OF MIXING MORTAR ETC. ON HIGHWAYS

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 33, after 'drains', insert or 'sewers '.

Mr. Speaker: With it we shall discuss Government Amendments, Nos. 8 and 9.

Mr. Barnett: The amendments insert the words "or sewers" after the word "drains" where it occurs in subsection (1), and the words "and sewers" after the word "drain" in subsection (2)(a) of Clause 3. The amendments arise out of an undertaking given by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales in Committee accepting the principle of amendments proposed at the time. This amendment takes account of the debate which took place in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 4, line 34, after 'drains', insert 'or sewers';

No. 9, in page 4, line 41, after ' drains ', insert ' and sewers '.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 3, at end insert—
'(bb) by a body having a duty under an enactment to maintain—

(i)a bridge over which or a tunnel through which the highway passes, or
(ii)works or materials supporting or protecting the highway where it forms part of the approaches to such a bridge or tunnel,

if the mixing or deposit is in connection with the maintenance or alternation of the bridge, tunnel, works or materials;'

Mr. Speaker: With it we shall discuss Government Amendment No. 11.

Mr. Barnett: As subsection (2) stands it is not an offence under subsection (1) for a highway authority or local authority to mix or deposit mortar on highways in connection with the maintenance or alteration of a highway or bridge or tunnel over which or through which the highway passes. There are many cases where a bridge is maintained by the British Railways Board, British Waterways Board or the London Transport Executive, and there are some maintained by private persons. Many tunnels also have been constructed under private Acts of Parliament by such bodies which are neither local authorities nor highway authorities. Where such bodies are responsible for the maintenance of a bridge or tunnel and associated approaches it is right that they should be treated in the same way as the local authority or the highway authority for the purpose of mixing mortar in a highway.
The clause as it stands makes no such provision, and the amendments remedy this.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 5, line 10, leave out from ' In ' to ' as ' in line 11 and insert:
'paragraphs (b) and (bb) of the preceding subsection "maintain" and "maintenance" have the same meanings '.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Clause 7

SAFETY OF CERTAIN UNOCCUPIED HOUSES ETC.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 7, line 26, at end insert:

'(3) The preceding provisions of this section shall have effect, in relation to any area which in pursuance of section 40 of the Housing Act 1969 or section 49 of the Housing Act 1974 is for the time being declared by the Greater London Council to be a general improvement area or a housing action area, as if in subsection (1) of this section for the words preceding paragraph (a) there were substituted the words "If it appears to the Greater London Council that any unoccupied premises in the area in respect of which—"and for the words "the authority" in both places there were substituted the words "the Council".'.
Clause 7, which applies to houses which are unoccupied as a consequence of a closing order, or an undertaking given by the owner that they will not be used for human habitation, empowers district councils to carry out necessary works to secure such premises against unauthorised entry by vandals, vagrants, and children. It can thus be regarded as an extension of the statutory procedure resulting in the closing order or undertaking.
In general improvement areas and housing action areas declared by the GLC, that authority is the Part 11/57 Act authority, and is thus empowered to make closing orders. Therefore it should have the powers of Clause 7 in respect of houses in general improvement areas and housing action areas declared by it.
This amendment achieves this, and meets the commitment given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) at Committee stage that a Government amendment would be tabled following the withdrawal of his amendment in Committee.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 8

BYELAWS ABOUT CERTAIN LAND HELD IN PURSUANCE OF PART V OF rue HOUSING ACT 1957.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 28, leave out from 'which' to 'is' in line 29.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we shall discuss Government Amendmentment No. 14.

Mr. Barnett: The purpose of the amendment is to meet the objection raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) to the clause as originally


drafted. The amendment he moved at that time was designed to overcome what he regarded as the over-restrictive nature of the clause, due to the fact that it referred to
land which is or forms part of an open space. recreation ground, road or garden and is held under Section 93 of the Housing Act 1957".
Local authorities are anxious that the clause should be sufficiently broadly drawn to ensure that the byelaw-making power provided is available in respect of all the odd corners of open land on their housing estates. In some quarters there has been doubt as to whether these pieces of land could all be said to come within the original definition.
My hon. Friend withdrew his amendment, on receiving an assurance that redrafting of the clause would be considered in order to meet his point. We are putting forward this amendment in the hope that it will be acceptable.

Amendment agreed to

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 7, line 32, at end insert:
'covered by buildings or included in the curtilage of a building or '.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]'

Clause 9

REVOCATION OF CLOSING ORDER AS RESPECTS PART OF PREMISES TO WHICH IT RELATES

Mr. Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 8, line 33, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert:
'(a) in a case where the payment was not reduced in pursuance of paragraph 4(4) of Schedule 2 to the said Act of 1957 or paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 5 to the said Act of 1969, the fraction obtained by dividing the rateable value of the part of the premises in question at the time when the closing order was made by the rateable value of the premises at that time;
(b) in a case where the payment was so reduced, the fraction obtained by dividing the rateable value at that time of so much of the part of the premises in question as was used for the purposes of a private dwelling by the rateable value at that time of so much of the premises as was so used'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to discuss Government Amendment No. 16.

Mr. Barnett: Local authorities must determine a closing order made on an

unfit house if the property the subject of the order is made fit. Clause 9 provides that an authority must determine a closing order in respect of part of the premises if that part has been made fit.
Section 69 of the Housing Act 1969 provides that when a closing order is determined, compensation payments made to owner-occupiers or payments made for good maintenance to owners should in certain circumstances be repaid to the authority. Clause 9(3) provides that where a closing order is determined in part an appropriate fraction of the payments should be repaid.
Subsections (4) and (5) as drafted provide that in the case of payments for good maintenance the appropriate fraction should be based on the rateable value of the premises and the appropriate part thereof respectively. In the case of compensation payments to owner-occupiers, it should he based on the respective floor areas.
We consider that apportionment on the basis of rateable value would be simpler and more practicable for valuers. There is already in the Housing Act 1957 a provision for apportioning rateable values which is of long standing and is well understood. The amendments provide for a common basis of apportionment based on rateable value.

Amendment agreed to

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 8, line 42, leave out from 'determining' to end of clause and insert:
'the rateable value of premises or a portion of them for the purposes of the preceding subsection as if for references to a house there were substituted references to the premises or portion '.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Clause 11

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 10

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 11, line 41, at end insert:
'(4) The accounts of a local authority by which expenditure is incurred under any of the provisions of the preceding section and this section shall include a separate account of that expenditure and of any income connected with functions conferred on the authority by those provisions'.


The effect of the Amendment would be to require local authorities to keep a separate account of income and expenditure incurred in respect of a district heating project. The requirement is in general terms and does not attempt to specify in any detail the costs and the income which should be attributed to such an account.
Amendments requiring the keeping of separate accounts were introduced by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) in Committee. Although the Government's initial position was to resist the amendments, my predecessor in office undertook to reconsider the issue in the light of the Committee's views. The present amendment is an attempt to deal with the situation and a result of that reconsideration.
The principle behind the proposed statutory requirement was never in doubt. There is no question but that local authorities should be publicly accountable in the costing of their district heating operations and that a proper separation and identification of costs is an essential element in such accountability. In resisting the original amendment the Government merely felt that the desired separation would occur as a matter of good accounting practice and that any statutory requirement was therefore superfluous.
Though the inclusion or otherwise of the hon. Member's amendments was not felt to be of major significance, the Committee was not content that the matter should be dropped. It was felt that the district heating proposals in Clause 10 involved a definite extension of local authorities' powers and of their potential capital investment and that in these circumstances it was important that proper accounting should be seen to be done. The force of this argument is accepted and the present amendment consequently introduced.

Mr. Michael Neubert: After three hours of sustained silence, perhaps I may take 30 seconds to thank the Minister for meeting the point raised in Committee. Such magnanimity of spirit is relatively rare in the realms of the Executive and is to be welcomed.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 12

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF RIGHTS OVER LAND

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 11, line 45, after purpose ', insert:
'(including acquisition on behalf of a parish or community council)'.

Mr. Speaker: With it we may also take the following amendments:
No. 19, in Clause 13, page 15, line 5, at end insert:
'(8) This section shall apply to a parish council and to a community council if the interest mentioned in subsection (1) above is held by them for a purpose for which the district council can, by virtue of any enactment, be authorised to acquire land compulsorily on their behalf'.
No. 49, in Clause 24, page 29, line 7, at end insert:
'(4) This section shall apply to a parish council and community council on whose behalf money has been paid into court in pursuance of the enactments mentioned in subsection (1) above as if such council had paid the money into court themselves'.
No. 51, in Clause 26, page 29, line 41, after authority', insert:
'or parish council or community council'.
No. 62, in Clause 34, page 36, line 23, after '25', insert 26,'.

Mr. Winterton: I wish to declare an interest in that I am an honorary vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils. I share that honour with hon. Members on both sides of the House. May I say how much I appreciate the work done by community and parish councils, whether in urban or rural areas?
The amendments are important because the parish and community councils have no direct compulsory purchase powers. Under Section 125 of the Local Government Act 1972, a district council, at the parish or community council's representation, carries out compulsory purchase proceedings and the land is eventually conveyed to the parish or community council, which pays for it. The amendment is to ensure that the parish or community council's right remains in step with the rights of the other authorities.
On Amendment No. 19, parish and community councils have no direct power


of compulsory purchase. I have explained the provisions of Section 125 of the 1972 Act. This amendment is even more important than Amendment No. 18. The opening words of subsection (1) differentiate between parish and community councils and other authorities, and so exclude parish and community councils. This differentiation comes about because the interest as held by the parish or community councils in the power of compulsory purchase is vested in a different authority, namely, the district council.
I hope that this rather complicated explanation is clear. The parish and community councils feel strongly that the Bill should not get things wrong; hence the amendments.
I turn now to Amendment No. 49. Land is compulsorily purchased on behalf of a parish or community council by a district council, but at the expense of the parish or community council. If a district council has paid that money into court, under the clause as it stands only the district council can take it out, even though in equity it is then bound to pay it over. If the parish or community council could do that itself, that would simplify the procedure and, what is more, perhaps save time. In considering this sort of Bill the Government should be keen not only to simplify procedures but to save time, because time is money.
I deal finally with Amendment No. 51, which is quite straight forward. I hope that the Minister will take note of it, because, if anything, this is even more desirable at this level than in larger areas, because parishes and communities often contain very small sites which are convenient to their neighbours but not needed by themselves.
This is a natural consequence of small scale. Certainly in some parishes small scale is the hallmark of the authority. For example, a parish council may wish to provide a bus shelter for use by local inhabitants, but in practice it might have to be put on a site across the road in the next parish. This amendment is to try to simplify the matter and make it easier to implement a proposal such as this.
7.0 p.m.
I have moved the amendments very quickly and, I hope, simply. I trust that I have been clear in my limited explanation. These matters are of importance to community and parish councils. Certainly for rural areas these councils do a remarkable amount of good work, and those who serve on them give of their time very freely and very often they have tremendous experience of the needs of their community. I hope that in responding, therefore, the Under Secretary, whom I welcome to the Dispatch Box and congratulate upon his appointment, will sympathetically reply to the points I have made.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I can certainly begin by echoing the words of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the excellent work that parish and community councils do and the enormous amount of work done by members of those bodies voluntarily for the good of the community as a whole. I recognise the reason why it was the hon. Gentleman who moved this series of amendments. I want to deal with each of the amendments in turn—as briefly as I can, in view of the time.
Amendment No. 18 is one that we have examined. We find it to be quite otiose. Subsection (I) says that a local authority which may be authorised by a Minister of the Crown by means of a compulsory purchase order to purchase any land compulsorily for any purpose may also be authorised to acquire rights over land. As district councils have powers under Section 125 of the Local Government Act 1972 to acquire land compulsorily on behalf of parish or community councils, they will also be able to acquire rights over land compulsorily under the clause as it stands. Therefore, in our view the amendment is unnecessary and would serve only to throw doubt on the scope of the powers in Section 125 of the Act.
The effect of Amendment No. 19 would be to apply the provisions of the clause to interests in land held by parish and community councils. Subsection (1) provides that the provisions of the clause apply only where an interest in land is held by a local authority for a purpose for which the authority can by virtue of an enactment be authorised to acquire


land compulsorily. As parish and community councils have no powers of compulsory purchase themselves, they cannot therefore use the powers in this clause, nor can a district council act on their behalf as they will not hold the land. On the other hand, Section 124(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 gave local councils the right to overcome restrictive covenants on land they acquired by agreement after 1st April 1974, so it will no doubt be argued that they should have the same rights under Clause 13.
The difference between Clause 13 and Section 124 of the 1972 Act is that here we are providing for action to be taken after the land has been acquired and only once notice has been given so that objections can be made and an inquiry held if necessary before the Secretary of State can confirm the order. The procedure in the clause is closely modelled on the procedures for compulsory purchase and, just as parish and community councils are quite reasonably denied compulsory purchase powers, so it would be wrong to give them the very similar powers conferred by this clause.
If there are any cases where parish or community councils have acquired land before 1st April 1974 which is burdened with a restrictive covenant, there is no reason why they cannot seek to reach agreement with the landowners concerned for the covenant to be waived. At present, I am not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to justify giving such wide-ranging powers to local councils nor indeed do I think that it would be right to introduce further complex provisions into the Bill which would impose upon the district councils the burden of acting on their behalf.
Amendment No. 49 again, unfortunately, we find unacceptable. I shall explain why shortly. However, I shall also want to explain the reasons why I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having moved the amendment.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, parish and community councils have no powers of compulsory purchase themselves and district councils have to act on their behalf. If the district council has paid the compensation into court, the district council could be empowered to take it out, when in equity it is then bound to pay it over. While accepting that this may

seem a cumbersome procedure, it should be remembered that compulsory purchase orders made by district councils on behalf of parish or community councils are very rare and it would seem that there will be few if any cases where compensation is likely to have been paid into Court.
Those are all the amendments that the hon. Gentleman moved and I am sorry that in each case, unfortunately, we are not able to accept them. However, I ought to say that the last amendment revealed that Clause 24(3) as drafted does not enable a district council to apply for repayment in a case in which the money was paid into court by a former authority—that is, an authority that has ceased to exist—on behalf of the parish council. This is because the application can be made only by the local authority which holds the land, but parish councils are not local authorities for the purposes of this clause and the district council does not hold the land. We shall, therefore, have to give consideration to tabling a suitable amendment on this point in another place.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his explanation of why the Government do not see fit to accept the amendments. Certainly in two cases I believe that he has good grounds for doing that, although I am somewhat disappointed that he did not find it possible to accept one of the other amendments.
I hope that I am correct in interpreting from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he fully appreciates the position of parish and community councils in the matters I have described. I hope that that interpretation is correct and that we can take from him an assurance that these matters will be continually under review and. when the Secretary of State is involved, that each and every case will be sympathetically considered. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO SURVEY LAND WHICH THEY PROPOSE TO ACQUIRE COMPULSORILY

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 15, line 34, leave out ' seven ' and insert 'fourteen'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this it may be convenient to discuss Government Amendment No. 23.

Mr. Barnett: The effect of the amendments is to increase both the minimum period of notice to be given to an occupier of the land before admission to the land can be demanded as of right and the minimum period of notice to be given before any apparatus is placed or left on the land from seven days to 14 days.
Again, this matter was debated in Committee. As a consequence of that debate and of the arguments advanced from the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales gave an undertaking that we would look at this question again. It is a consequence of looking at it again that the Government have gone along with the original proposal made by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). Therefore, we hope that the hon. Gentleman is totally happy about this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 15, line 39, leave out
'which is the subject of the survey in question'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendment No. 22.

Mr. Barnett: This and the consequential amendment are drafting alterations. Subsections (1) and (2) give a local authority power to enter on "other land" for the purpose of surveying the land which it proposes to acquire compulsorily and to place, leave on, or remove apparatus from that land. The words
which is the subject of the survey in question
could be interpreted as limiting the requirement in subsection (3)(e) to give notice of the placing, leaving, or removing of apparatus from the land which was the subject of the survey. But notice should also be given if apparatus is to be placed on other land. By removing the qualifying words in line 39 and making a consequential amendment in line 40 this restriction is removed and it is made clear that notice must be given.

Amendment agreed to

Amendments made:

No. 22, in page 15, line 40, leave out ' that ' and insert 'the'.

No. 23, in page 15, line 44, leave out ' seven ' and insert 'fourteen '.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 16, line 7, at end insert:
'(f) shall not search or bore on or in the land which is the subject of the survey in question if the land is held by relevant undertakers—

(i)unless notice of his intention to do so has been served by the local authority on the undertakers not less than fourteen days before he does so, and
(ii) if within that period the undertakers serve on the local authority a notice stating that they object to the searching or boring on the ground that to do so would be seriously detrimental to the carrying on of their undertaking, unless the Secretary of State authorises him in writing to do so;'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendment No. 25.

Mr. Barnett: The National Coal Board in particular has pointed out that in mining areas such searching or boring as might be undertaken by local authorities might have serious effects. Similar considerations apply to other relevant undertakers, and it is therefore right that they should be able to object to such operations on their land. There are equivalent provisions in Section 65(5) of the Highways Act 1971 and I hope that, in view of the position of statutory undertakers, the amendments will be acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 16, line 8, leave out 'paragraph (e)(ii)' and insert 'paragraphs (e) and (f)'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 17, line 9, at end insert:
'(9) A local authority which has power by virtue of section 64(1) of the Highways Act 1971, section 280(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or paragraph 20(1) of Schedule 4 to the Community Land Act 1975 to authorise a person to survey or enter on any land as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall not be entitled by virtue of that subsection to authorise a person to survey or enter on the land.'


The effect of the amendment is to provide that the powers in the clause cannot be used where comparable powers of entry and survey are available under provisions in other Acts. The provisions concerned are sections of the Highway Act, of the Town and Country Planning Act and of the Community Land Act.
Where the other powers are available the existence of the general power in the clause is undesirable, because there are differences in the detail and scope of the various provisions related to the purposes for which they were intended and confusion could easily arise if these powers were to overlap with the powers in the clause. Landowners, for instance, should not be exposed to two powers of entry where one will suffice. The amendment therefore provides that the powers in Clause No. 14 cannot be used where these other powers are available.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 15

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO OBTAIN PARTICULARS OF PERSONS INTERESTED IN LAND

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 17, line 19, after 'land' insert:
'and the function and the enactment which confers the function'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendment No. 28.

Mr. Barnett: Amendment No. 27 will require a local authority, serving a notice under the provision, to state in the notice the function in connection with which it requires the information and also the enactment by which that function is conferred.
This amendment, too, results from an undertaking given by the Government in Committee to consider tabling their own amendment to meet the point made, I think, by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). In Committee my hon. Friend said that he took on board the point
that where the local authority serves a notice requiring someone to give information about somebody else it is right and proper that, before giving that information, the person concerned should know why that information is wanted."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 1st April 1976, c. 80.]

Amendment agreed to

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 17, line 21, after 'notice', insert
'(which shall not be less than fourteen days beginning with the day on which the notice is served) '.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Clause 17

LICENSING OF PLEASURE BOATS AND BOATMEN

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 18, line 22, leave out from 'navigating' to end of subsection.
This is a drafting amendment which would delete the words at the end of subsection (1)
and for the words ' a boatman or other person ' there shall be substituted the words 'such a person'.".
Those words are unnecessary, and for that reason I ask the House to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 19, line 14, at end insert—
'(bb) study centres, exhibitions, trails and other facilities for giving information about natural features, flora, fauna, agriculture, forestry, industry, archaeology, history and traditions of the locality.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments:

No. 32, in page 19, line 17 leave out 'premises ' and insert 'facilities'.

No. 33, in page 19, line 18 after 'social', insert 'educational'.

No. 34, in page 19, line 20 leave out ' or premises '.

No. 35, in page 19, line 31 after second ' provide ', insert 'or lend '.

No. 37, in page 19, line 36 at end insert—
'(2A) A local authority may for the purpose of subsection (1) above use or allow to be used any land or buildings held by the authority for any other purposes at such times and in such manner as would not conflict with those other purposes, and the authority may carry out such works or make such provisions as would enable any land or building held for other purposes to be also used for the purpose of subsection (1) above.'.

No. 38, in page 19, line 36 at end insert—
'(2B) Subsection (2A) above shall not authorise any authority to contravene any covenant or condition subject to which any land or buildings may be held without the consent of the donor, granter, lessor, contributing authority or other person entitled in law to the benefit of the covenant or condition.'

No. 39, in page 20, line 27 at end insert—
'(7) In section 53(1) of the Education Act 1944 (which authorises the provision by local education authorities of recreational facilities for persons receiving primary, secondary or further education) the words "with the approval of the Minister" are hereby repealed.'

No. 188, in Title, line 9, after 'enactments', insert—
'to amend section 53(1) of the Education Act 1944'.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The main question here is that Clause 18 gives local authorities power to provide or to contribute towards the provision of a wide range of recreational facilities, but a number of bodies—including the Youth Hostels Association—are concerned because they are not satisfied that that covers the provision of a wide range of semi-recreational or semi-educational facilities. I am sure that that is a matter of concern to my hon. Friend and to all others who enjoy these facilities.
The provisions were clearly available under the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937, but those provisions have been repealed or are being repealed by provisions in the schedule to the Bill. Therefore, even though the Minister said when the matter was raised in somewhat different form in Committee upstairs that it was the general feeling that these matters were covered under the new wording, he agreed that he would consider the matter and if he found it necessary would suggest some suitable wording.
Suitable wordings have been thrown round the Chamber in a whole mass of amendments this evening, but no suitable amendment has been suggested to deal with the point at issue here, and that is why these amendments have been put forward. We are most concerned that field study centres, exhibitions, trails, and so on, that are organised from youth hostels should be within the range of matters to which local authorities can contribute if they wish.
We also seek to ensure in one of the amendments that school buildings can be used outside of school time, during holidays, and so on, for hostel and other comparable purposes. We are not satisfied that the word "premises" covers the kind of school facilities that could be used. We are thinking also of outside facilities. To cover ourselves we have included an amendment to the Title of the Bill, although I was not certain that that is required.
Although my hon. Friend has not been able to put down amendments on the Order Paper, I hope that he will accept all my amendments, or at least give me a satisfactory answer for not doing so, otherwise he may find himself barred from youth hostels. That would be a tragedy that I am sure neither he nor I would wish to happen.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I should be exceedingly sorry to find myself excluded from youth hostels, as a former very considerable user of such institutions. I sympathise, as a lover of the countryside myself, with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) concerning the work of local authorities and other bodies in the countryside, and the educational aspect of such work.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention first to the clause as it stands, and in particular to the wording, in subsection (1), that
those powers include in particular powers to provide.
The subsection then gives an illustrative list of a number of things which local authorities are permitted to do under the clause. It is not an exhaustive list—there could well be arguments against describing them specifically—and is only an illustration of a number of the possibilities available.
It is important also to point out that confusion might be caused with provisions which would be more appropriately found within Education Acts rather than in a Bill of this sort. That argument was put in the Standing Committee.
The clause updates Section 4 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 to take account of modern forms of recreation such as are listed in the clause and to which I have already referred. The amendment is concerned with the


giving of information about agriculture, forestry and other such matters. That is clearly a form of education or instruction and is a matter appropriate to the various Education Acts.
It is true that a broadly similar provision occurs in Section 12 of the Countryside Act 1968, which deals with the provision of facilities in or near national parks. But that reinforces the point, because the provision is appropriate in that context. It would not be appropriate here, and for that reason I cannot recommend the acceptance of the amendment.
As to Amendment No. 32, in our view the insertion of the word "facilities" instead of "premises" is unnecessary and undesirable. The list is merely illustrative, and without prejudice to the generality of the powers to provide recreational facilities of any kind.
Amendment No. 33 would extend the illustrative list of powers to provide premises for clubs and societies with social or recreational objects to include clubs and societies with educational objects.
Amendment No. 34 would remove the reference to premises in section (1)(e). Subsection (1)(e) of the clause makes it clear that the power to provide recreational facilities includes the power to provide staff to look after the facilities or premises referred to in sub-section (1)(d).
The danger of the amendment is that it would be liable to create doubt and confusion. The list of facilities is intended to be illustrative, as I said earlier. Having made it clear that facilities may include premises, it seems sensible to put it beyond doubt that the power to provide staff relates to premises also. The whole purpose of the subsection is to make quite clear what local authorities can do.
Amendment No. 35 would give local authorities power to lend buildings, equipment, supplies and assistance of any kind in addition to their power to provide such items. As subsection (2) already empowers local authorities to make facilities available for use without charge, the amendment, in our view, is superfluous and should therefore not be passed by the House.
The effect of Amendments No. 37 and No. 38 would be to enable a local

authority to use any of its land or buildings, no matter under what powers they were held, to provide recreational facilities under the clause, provided that they were not used in such a way as to conflict with the powers under which they were held. The amendments would also empower the local authorities to carry out any works or to make provision for the land or buildings to be so used, provided that this also did not conflict with the powers under which the land or buildings were held. The proposed subsection (2B) makes it clear that the powers proposed in subsection (2A) would not authorise an authority to contravene any covenants or conditions under which the land is held without the consent of the person who benefited from that covenant or condition.
The amendments are similar to one moved in Committee. No adequate reason was given for that unprecedented amendment. The only information given in Committee was that local authorities wished to provide farm trails and dual use of school premises and that it should be easier to build other recreational facilities on pleasure grounds. We examined this point, and on the whole, again we found that it was not possible for the Government to accept it.
I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend but, while accepting all that he says about the extension of activities into the educational field and in other ways, I do not think that it would be appropriate to incorporate into the Bill his series of amendments.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am, naturally, very disappointed, having been given not a single ray of hope, whereas hon. Members opposite have had all sorts of offers made to them. It seems to me that my hon. Friend, by rejecting the amendments, has left local authorities still with some doubts in their minds whether they are able to assist in this work. Local authorities are very tight-fisted bodies—all the more so in present times—and I fear very much that the measure as it stands will have a damaging effect upon the work of the Youth Hostels Association and similar bodies. This is unfortunate, as we have always wanted to give encouragement in this direction.
In as much as the Education Acts and similar provisions can be used, no doubt


they will be used, but it would be infinitely easier and more satisfactory to have joint powers here in this provision, which is where these bodies wish to have them. I therefore regret the Minister's answer very much indeed.
I shall not delay the House by seeking to divide it—that would be a foolish thing to do—but I am by no means satisfied with the Minister's answer. I shall endeavour to have the Ministry harried in another place, as we cannot make any progress here. I hope that after discussion in another place, there will be a rather more encouraging and helpful reply than I have had from my hon. Friend tonight.
In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 19, line 32, at end insert
'and that the power of provision includes in the case of land power to grant leases upon such terms as the local authority thinks fit'.
The amendment is not totally unconnected with the short discussion and debate which has just taken place. I wonder how many letters hon. Members receive from constituents about recreational facilities, playing grounds, and the like. Certainly my postbag is burdened from time to time with representations from people who feel strongly about the lack of facilities or the need to improve existing facilities. Parish and community councils have a heavy responsibility in recreational provision
Although Clause 18 is meant to replace Section 4 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937, it does not appear to have retained the far-reaching powers of leasing under that Act. Section 4(1) of the 1937 Act says that local authorities may
manage those lands and buildings themselves, either with or without a charge for the use thereof or admission thereto, or may let them, or any portion thereof, at a nominal or other rent to any person, club, society or organisation for use for any of the purposes aforesaid.
Clause 18(1) does not seem to include that power of leasing.
Clause 18(1) and (2) refers only to direct provision or the giving of licences.

Surely no one would interpret the words charge or charges in subsection (2) as including rent. Thus the effect of the repeal of Section 4 of the 1937 Act is that the leasing powers have been repealed and this could have far-reaching effects on the activities of local and community councils.
The Minister may answer my case by saying that local authorities have adequate powers of leasing under Sections 123 and 127 of the Local Government Act 1972, but I do not believe that these are the same, for local authorities have either to obtain the best rent or get the consent of the Secretary of State, except in the unusual case of short tenancies.
Parish and community councils have made longish leases of between 28 years and 40 years by the thousand under the 1937 Act and its predecessor, the Public Health Act 1925. Nobody has ever suggested that the law or the practice was unsatisfactory—quite the reverse.
In the ordinary course of events one would normally expect many more such leases to be made or renewed. The provisions of this Bill will generate correspondence with Government Departments which has been considered unnecessary for half a century. The clause in its present form also appears to put in doubt the status of existing leases. It certainly puts in doubt the future of small organisations, mostly charitable, whose leases are on the verge of expiry and who were expecting a fairly simple renewal.
In interviews with civil servants, representatives of the National Association of Local Councils were assured that it was not the intention to abridge the powers conferred by the 1937 and 1958 Acts. If that is the case, the amendment, which restores the position, will surely be welcome to the Minister and his officials.
The Physical Training and Recreation Acts are relatively far more important to parish and community councils, which use them all the time, than to other authorities. Especially important is the provision which enables public amenities to be provided through voluntary effort. Surely we want to do everything possible to encourage the continuation of voluntary effort. The Physical Training and Recreation Act 1958 was a Private Member's Bill brought in at the National


Association of Local Councils' urging. Obviously the Association is deeply concerned in this matter.
This is an important amendment. I was happy to withdraw the last amendment I moved, but I hope that we shall get a positive and constructive reply to this proposal, which is of the utmost importance to local and community councils.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I shall try to be as constructive as I can. I know that the National Association of Local Councils is particularly concerned about the point which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has made.
Under the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937, local authorities have a very wide power, which has been used extensively, to lease land, for example, for playing fields at a nominal rent to sports clubs. Many village playing fields and village halls are held on such leases.
Under the clause as drafted, any land held for the purposes of those powers or the 1937 Act will be leased under Sections 123—principal councils—and 127—parish and community councils—of the Local Government Act 1972. This is more restrictive. It requires the consent of the Secretary of State where land is leased at less than the best consideration. This could result in the Department receiving many thousands of requests for such consents, and most of these would be from parish and community councils.
It is agreed that local authorities should have the same freedom as they have under the 1937 Act. This can be achieved by a general consent under Section 128(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 and such a consent to the disposal of property held for the purpose of Section 4 and property held under this clause for purposes corresponding to those of that section will be given before Section 4 is repealed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for that clear exposition of the Government's case, though I do not think it fully answers my case.
I had a suspicion that the Minister would refer to Section 127 of the Local Government Act 1972. That section will be used to excuse a great deal, now and in the future.
Bearing in mind the fact that we have the opportunity of making representations in another place and the fact that I am not totally dissatisfied with the Minister's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19

PROVISION OF SANITARY APPLIANCES AT PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 21, line 43, leave out from ' to ' to 'who' in line 44 and insert:
'sub-sections (6A) and (7) of this section, a person'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Government Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 44.

Mr. Barnett: The effect of these amendments is to make the person on whom a notice is served liable for compliance with its requirements, notwithstanding that by the expiration of the period specified in the notice he may have ceased to be the owner or occupier; but to make it a defence for him to prove that he did not cease to be an owner or occupier by reason of anything done or omitted by himself or another with a view to avoiding compliance with the notice.
The clause as drafted would penalise only a person who was an owner or occupier of a relevant place both when the notice was served and when the failure to comply occurred, and so would lend itself to evasion simply by change of ownership or occupancy. Such a change could occur wholly innocently, for example by simple expiry of an interest, or bankruptcy and that would consitute a defence under the amendments, but the onus is placed upon the person upon whom the notice was served to satisfy the court that the change of ownership or occupancy was not merely a means to defeat the notice.
Amendment No. 42 is the substantive amendment. The other four are consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 21, line 45, leave out 'the' and insert 'a relevant'.

No. 42, in page 22, line 3, at end insert:
'(6A) In proceedings for an offence under the preceding subsection of failing to comply with a notice it shall be a defence to show that at the time of the failure the person on whom the notice was served was neither an owner nor an occupier of the relevant place in question and that he did not cease to be an owner or occupier of it by reason of anything done or omitted by him or any other person with a view to avoiding compliance with the notice'.

No. 43, in page 22, line 4, leave out 'the preceding subsection' and insert
'subsection (6) of this section'.

No. 44, in page 22, line 11, leave out 'the preceding subsection' and insert
subsection (6) of this section '.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 22, line 24, at end insert:
'(7A) This section shall not apply to any premises in respect of which there is in force a licence under the Cinematograph Acts 1909 and 1952 and the Gaming Act 1968'.
This amendment relates to a problem which has been raised with me by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association. It argues that any premises licensed under the appropriate Acts, which are listed in the amendment, have to conform to an appropriate licence concerning sanitary conveniences and other matters which are mentioned in the clause. The association feels that if this amendment were accepted, taking out from the provisions of the clause a reference to what is already licensed, this would prevent an unnecessary duplication. It is a small but important point and I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman. It is quite true that cinematograph licensing authorities already impose conditions requiring sanitary conveniences. The same local authorities would exercise Clause 19 powers and would have some knowledge of cinemas and their problems. It is understood that the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association is extremely concerned about the risk of new capital expenditure being required in an industry facing a declining market, but this does not seem to justify declining to allow local authorities powers to require reasonable facilities in premises of this kind.
I do not think that it would be anything other than a retrograde step to

remove the application of this provision and, therefore, I must advise the House that we cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Speed: Naturally I am disappointed, but as this matter may well be looked at in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20

APPEAL TO COUNTY COURT AGAINST CERTAIN NOTICES UNDER S. 19

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 23, line 32, leave out from 'either' to end of subsection and insert:
'(a) quash the notice to which the appeal relates; or
(b) modify the notice so that, instead of imposing its requirements on the appellant, it imposes them upon another person who is an owner or occupier of the relevant place in question; or
(c) order that the appellant be entitled to recover from such a person a specified part of the expenses incurred by the appellant in complying with the notice; or
(d) dismiss the appeal;
but the court shall not be entitled to exercise its powers under paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection unless a ground of the appeal is that mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section.
(3A) Where the court modifies a notice in pursuance of paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection the notice shall be deemed to be served in pursuance of the preceding section on the other person in question on the date on which the modification is made; but that person shall not be entitled to appeal against the notice in pursuance of this section.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 55.

Mr. Barnett: These amendments recast the court's powers under Clause 30(3). In doing so they broaden its powers by authorising the court to alter the terms of the notice served by a local authority under Clause 19, so that another owner or occupier of the property is required to comply with the notice. The amendments also restrict the exercise of the court's power so to alter the notice, or to order the person served with the notice to recover part of his expenses from another owner or occupier of the property, to cases where the person served with the notice appealed on the grounds that it would have been fairer if the notice had


been served on another owner or occupier of the property.
The purpose of the amendments is principally to enable the court to order compliance with the notice by another owner or occupier instead of the appellant. As the clause stands, the court is limited to ordering that other owner or occupier to pay to the appellant the cost of compliance, which would leave the appellant in the onerous position of having to lay out money on work which the court considered to be the responsibility of another and to recover the cost if he could.
The amendments also add a further subsection (3A) to subsection (3) which provides that where the court exercises its power to alter the notice pursuant to subsection (3)(b), the other owner or occupier on whom the requirements of the notice are imposed is to be deemed to have been served with the notice and is to have no right of appeal.
Where the court exercises its power under subsection (3)(b), the other owner or occupier will have been made a respondent to the appeal and will have had a chance of airing his case before the court. There is, therefore, no purpose in requiring the local authority to reserve the notice in its altered form on the other owner or occupier, and the other owner or occupier should not have the right to come back to the court on the very issue which the court will have determined when making its order under subsection (3)(b).

Amendment agreed to

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 23, line 40, leave out from first 'to' to 'notice' in line 42 and insert:
'order that the appellant be entitled to recover from another person a part of the cost of complying with a'.

No. 48, in page 24, line 3, leave out 'modifies the notice or dismisses the appeal; 'and insert:
determines the appeal otherwise than by quashing the notice'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Clause 25

REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES OF REMUNERATION PAID TO DECEASED EMPLOYEES

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 29, line 38, at end insert:

'; and for the purposes of those provisions a member of a police force maintained by such a body shall be treated as employed by the body and references to employment in those provisions shall be construed accordingly'.
This amendment ensures that the terms of the clause include the police. As the House will know, policemen are technically not employees of police authorities but servants of the Crown. The amendment is necessary to ensure that they are covered by this clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO DEAL WITH DANGEROUS TREES

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 31, line 9, at end insert:
(3A) Where it appears to such a council that a tree on land in the area of the council which is not owned or occupied by the council is in such a condition that it is likely to cause damage to persons or property on other land in that area which is owned or occupied by the council, subsection (2) (except paragraph (b)) of this section, or as the case may require subsection (3) (except paragraph (b)) of this section shall apply as if the other land were occupied by another person and he had duly given notice to the council in pursuance of that subsection in respect of the tree".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendments No. 53 and No. 54.

Mr. Barnett: These amendments enable a district council, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London to take appropriate action when it considers that a tree on adjoining land is likely to cause damage to persons or property on land owned or occupied by the council. That is to say, where it does not know the owner or occupier of the land containing the tree, it may enter on the land and make the tree safe and, where it knows the owner or occupier of the land, it may serve a notice on him requiring him to make the tree safe.
The clause as it stands enables such a council to take action when an owner or occupier complains that his property is threatened by a dangerous tree on adjoining land but gives a council no right to take the initiative when the council's property is threatened by a dangerous tree on adjoining land.
This amendment is being moved in response to a point raised in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 31, line 11, leave out "the preceding subsection" and insert:
subsection (3) of this section".

No. 54, in page 31, line 18 leave out "the preceding" and insert "that".

No. 55, in page 31, line 28, leave out from first "the" to "to" in line 31 and insert:
references in subsections (2) and (3) of that section to paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of that section there were substituted references to paragraph (d) of the preceding subsection, for the references in subsections (3) and (4) of that section to the relevant place there were substituted references to the land on which the tree is situated and for the reference in subsection (3A) of that section to section 19 of this Act and the reference in subsection (5) of that section".—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Clause 29

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO APPOINT TIMES AND CHARGES FOR MARKETS

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 33, line 13, leave out from 'market' to 'may' in line 15 and insert:
'in pursuance of a local Act'.
This is a drafting amendment to make quite clear that subsection (2), like subsection (1), is concerned only with the powers of a local authority under a local Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32

EVIDENCE OF RESOLUTIONS AND MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS ETC.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 35, line 12. leave out
'or a precursor of a local authority'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 58.

Mr. Barnett: This amendment is necessary because in the clause
precursor of a local authority
refers to the old local authorities which ceased to exist on the coming into force of the Local Government Act 1972 on 1st April 1974. Before that date the concept of the proper officer was not known in local government. In addition, there

was no general power of delegation to officers before Section 101 of the Act of 1972 came into force and, so far as we can ascertain, appointments of officers and authorities to perform functions were made or given only by a local authority or a committee of a local authority.
It follows, therefore, that the references to a precursor authority are unnecessary because the documents to which subsection (3)(a) refers do not, in fact, exist so far as a precursor local authority is concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 35, line 14, leave out 'or precursor'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Clause 33

CERTAIN FUTURE LOCAL ACTS ETC TO BE SUBJECT TO THE PLANNING ENACTMENTS ETC EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 36, line 2, leave out 'was subject to special parliamentary procedure' and insert:
'is made in the exercise of powers conferred by an Act'.
The amendment extends the scope of the clause to cover all orders authorising the carrying out of specific works on specific land, not merely those subject to special parliamentary procedure. The amendment is designed to correct subsection (2)(c), which by referring solely to orders subject to special parliamentary procedure is too narrowly drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34

INTERPRETATION ETC. OF PART I

Amendments made: No. 60, in page 36, line 8, after 'this', insert 'Part of this'.

No. 63, in page 37, line 6, after 'this', insert 'Part of this'.

No. 64, in page 37, line 20, after 'this', insert `Part of this '.

No. 65, in page 37, line 23, after 'this insert' Part of this '.

No. 66, in page 37, line 26, after 'this', insert' Part of this '.

No. 67, in page 37, line 27, after 'this', insert' Part of this '.

No. 68, in page 37, line 32, after 'this', insert 'Part of this'.

No. 69, in page 37, line 36, after this', Insert Part of this '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 35

VEHICLE, DRIVERS' AND OPERATORS' LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 70, in page line 40, leave out 'As from the appointed day' and insert
'Except as authorised by this Part of this Act'.

No. 71, in page 38, line 2, leave out ' the ' and insert ' a controlled '.

No. 72, in page 38, line 5, leave out 'the ' and insert ' a controlled '.

No. 73, in page 38, line 6, after 'this ', insert ' Part of this '.

No. 74, in page 38, line 9, after 'this ', insert 'Part of this '.

No. 75, in page 38, line 13, leave out 'the ' and insert ' a controlled '.

No. 76, in page 38, line 16, leave out second ' the ' and insert ' a controlled '.

No. 77, in page 38, line 18, leave out in 'respect of which ' and insert ' if for the vehicle '.

No. 78, in page 38, line 20, leave out 'the driver of which' and insert ' if the driver '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 36

LICENSING OF HACKNEY CARRIAGES

Amendments made: No. 79, in page line 29, leave out ' make,':.

No. 80, in page 38, line 31, at end insert—
'(3) Any person aggrieved by any conditions attached to such a licence may appeal to a magistrates' court.'—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 37

LICENSING OF PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE

Amendments made: No. 81, in page 38, line 32, after ' this ', 'insert Part of this '.

No. 82, in page 38, line 42, leave out 'make,'.

No. 83, in page 39, line 11, at end insert
'including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this subsection,

conditions requiring or prohibiting the display of signs on or from the vehicle to which the licence relates'.

No. 84, in page 39, line 39, after 'this ', insert 'Part of this'.

No. 85, in page 39, line 40, leave out ' the ' and insert 'a controlled '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 38

ROOF SIGNS ON PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 40, line 9, leave out Clause 38.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 39

TRANSFER OF HACKNEY CARRIAGES AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES

Amendments made: No. 88, in page 40, line 21, leave out ' proposes to transfer the ownership and possession of ' and insert 'transfers his interest in '.

No. 89, in page 40, line 28, leave out knowingly or '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 40

PROVISIONS AS TO PROPRIETORS

Amendments made: No. 90. in page 40, line 35, leave out 'district' and insert 'area of the council'.

No. 91, in page 41, line 2, after ' this ', insert 'Part of this '.

No. 92, in page 41, line 5, after ' this ', insert 'Part of this '.

No. 93, in page 41, line 24, after ' officer ', insert ' of the council '.

No. 94, in page 41, line 29, leave out ' knowingly or '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 41

LICENSING OF DRIVERS OF PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES

Amendment made: No. 95, in page 41, line 32, after ' this ', insert ' Part of this'.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 43

DRIVERS' LICENCES FOR HACKNEY CARRIAGES AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES

Amendments made: No. 96, in page 42, line 10, after ' this ', insert 'Part of this'.

No. 97, in page 42, line 28, after 'officer', insert 'of the council'.

No. 98, in page 42, line 29, at end insert:
'either forthwith or—

(a) in the case of a request by an authorised officer, at the principal offices of the council before the expiration of the period of five days beginning with the day following that on which the request is made;
(b) in the case of a request by a constable, before the expiration of the period aforesaid at any police station which is within the area of the authority and is nominated by the driver when the request is made '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 45

LICENSING OF OPERATORS OF PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES

Amendment made: No. 99, in page 43, line 1, after 'this ', insert 'Part of this '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 46

OPERATORS OF PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES

Amendments made: No. 100, in page 43, line 18, after 'this ', insert 'Part of this '.

No. 101, in page 43, line 19, after 'this ', insert 'Part of this '.

No. 102, in page 43, line 22 leave out from 'Every ' to ' shall ' in line 23 and insert—
'person to whom a licence in force under section 45 of this Act has been granted by a district council'.

No. 103, in page 43, line 23 leave out 'a district 'and insert 'the'.

No. 104, in page 43, line 31 after 'officer ',insert 'of the council'.

No. 105, in page 43, line 32 leave out from 'Every 'to 'shall' in line 33 and insert—
'person to whom a licence in force under section 45 of this Act has been granted by a district council'.

No. 106, in page 43, line 33 leave out 'a district' and insert 'the'.

No. 107, in page 43, line 36 at end insert 'of the council'.

No. 108, in page 43, line 38 leave out from beginning to 'licence ' in line 39 and insert—
'A person to whom a licence in force under section 45 of this Act has been granted by a district council shall produce the'.

No. 109, in line 40 after 'officer', insert 'of the council'.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 47

POWER TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO SUBMIT INFORMATION

Amendments made: No. 110, in page 44, line 2 after 'this ',insert 'Part of this'.

No. 111, in line 7 at end insert subsection'.

No. 112, in line 25 leave out 'district' and insert 'area of the council'.

No. 113, in line 27 after 'this', insert 'Part of this'.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 48

RETURN OF IDENTIFICATION PLATE OR DISC ON REVOCATION OR EXPIRY OF LICENCE ETC.

Amendments made: No. 114, in page 45, line 30 leave out from 'disc' to end of subsection and insert—
'which—

(a) in the case of a hackney carriage, is required to be affixed to the carriage as mentioned in section 38 of the Act of 1847; and
(b) in the case of a private hire vehicle, was issued for the vehicle under section 37(5) of this Act.'

No. 115, in line 35 after 'liable', insert 'on summary conviction'.

No. 116, in line 38 after 'officer ', insert 'of the council '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 50

SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF VEHICLE LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 117, in page 46, line 11 after 'this', insert 'Part of this '.

No. 118, in line 18 after 'this' insert 'Part of this'.

No. 119, in line 24 after 'licence', Insert—`
'has been suspended or revoked or on which they have refused to renew the licence'.

No. 120, in line 29 after 'this ', insert 'Part of this'.

No. 121, in line 39 after 'this ', insert 'Part of this '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 51

SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF DRIVERS' LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 122, in page 47, line 8 after 'liable', insert on summary conviction'.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 52

SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF OPERATORS' LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 123, in page 47, line 11, after 'this ', insert 'Part of this'

No. 124, in line 16, after 'this ', insert 'Part of this '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 53

STANDS FOR HACKNEY CARRIAGES

Amendments made: No. 125, in page 47, line 35, leave out 'street in the district' and insert:
'highway in the district which is maintainable at the public expense'.

No. 126, in line 36, leave out not forming part of a street ' and insert:
in the district which does not form part of a highway so maintainable'.

No. 127, in line 42, leave out 'district' and insert:
'police area in which the stand is situated'.

No. 128, page 48, line 20, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).

No. 129, in line 28, leave out
'made by a district council before the passing of this Act'.

No. 130, in line 30, after 'carriages', insert:
'which were made by a district council before the date when this section comes into force in the area of the council and are in force immediately before that date '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 55

FIXING OF FINES FOR HACKNEY CARRIAGES

Amendments made: No. 131, in page 49, line 28, leave out office of the Chief Executive' and insert:
'offices of the council which published the notice'.

No. 132, in page 50, line 1, leave out or variation under this section' and insert:
'made by a council under this section for the district'.

No. 133, in line 4, after 'section', insert 'for the district'.

No. 134, in line 5, after 'Section ', insert:
'236(8) (except the words "when confirmed") and section '.

No. 135, in line 7, leave out 'it applies' and insert 'they apply'.—[Mr. Shape.]

Clause 56

FARES FOR LONG JOURNEYS

Amendments made: No. 136, in page 50, line, 12, after 'fare ', insert 'and no rate of fare '.

No. 138, in line 14, at end insert:
'or, if it is not equipped with a taximeter, greater than that which, if the current byelaws fixing rates or farer54des and in force in the district in pursuance of section 68 of the Act of 1847 or, as the case may be, the current table of fares in force within the district in pursuance of section 55 of this Act had applied to the journey, would have been authorised for the journey by the byelaws or table '.—[Mr. Snape]

8.0 p.m.

Clause 57

HACKNEY CARRIAGES USED FOR PRIVATE HIRE

Amendments made: No 140, in page 50, line 17, after 'used ', insert 'in the district'.

No. 141, in page 50, line 18, leave out from 'except' to 'of' in line 21 and insert:
'at a rate of fares or charges not greater than that fixed by the byelaws or table mentioned in section 56 '.

No. 142, in page 50, line 22, after 'point', insert 'in the district'.

No. 143, in page 50, line 25, at end insert—
'(3) In subsection (1) of this section "contract" means—

(a) a contract made otherwise than while the relevant hackney carriage is plying for hire in the district or waiting at a place in the district which, when the contract is made, is a stand for hackney carriages appointed by the district council under section 53 of this Act; and
(b) a contract made, otherwise than with or through the driver of the relevant hackney carriage, while it is so plying or waiting '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 58

FITNESS OF HACKNEY CARRIAGES AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES

Amendment made: No. 144, in page 50, line 26, after ' officer ', insert ' of the council in question '.— [Mr. Snape.]

Clause 60

FEES FOR VEHICLES AND CPERATORS' LICENCES

Amendment made: No 145, in page 51, line 43, leave out 'office of the chief executive' and insert:
'offices of the council which published the notice '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 61

TAXIMETERS

Amendments made: No. 146, in page 52, line 14, leave out ' As from the appointed day '.

No. 147, in page 52, line 16, leave out ' the ' and insert ' a controlled '.

No. 148, in page 52, line 17, after ' the ', insert ' relevant '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 62

OFFENCES DUE TO FAULT OF PERSON

Amendment made: No. 149, in page 52, line 22, after 'this ', insert 'Part of this '.—[Mr. Shape.]

Clause 63

POWER OF ENTRY

Amendment made: No 150, in page 52, line 29, leave out Clause 63.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 64

OBSTRUCTION OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS

Amendments made: No 151, in page
53, line 14, after ' this ' insert ' Part of this '.

No. 152, in page 53, line 19, after ' this ', insert 'Part of this '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 65

THE APPOINTED DAY

Amendments made: No. 153, in page
53, line 24, leave out subsections (1) to (4).

No. 154, in page 54, line 5, after 'this', insert 'Part of this'.

No. 155, in page 54, line 6, leave out 'this section' and insert
'section (Application of Part II) of this Act'.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 66

SAVING FOR CERTAIN VEHICLES

Amendments made: No. 156, in page 54, line 18, after 'this ', insert ' Part of this '.

No. 157, in page 54, line 20, leave out first ' the ' and insert ' a controlled '.

No. 158, in page 54, line 24, leave out from ' of ' to end of line 25 and insert
'the vehicle for a period of not less than seven days '

No. 159, in page 54, line 26, leave out 'of a funeral director used wholly or mainly' and insert
'while it is being used in connection with a funeral or a vehicle used wholly or mainly, by a person carrying on the business of a funeral director '

No. 160, in page 54, line 29, after ' this ', insert 'Part of this'.

No. 161, in page 54, line 32, leave out paragraph (a)

No. 162, in page 54, line 38, leave out from 'of' to end of line 39 and insert
'the vehicle for a period of not less than 24 hours '.—[Mr. Shape.]

Clause 68

APPEALS

Amendment made: No. 163, in page line 2, after ' this ', insert 'Part of this '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 69

APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF ACT OF 1936

Amendments made: No. 164, in page 55, line 17, leave out ' sections 286, 304 and 328 ' and insert ' section 304 '.

No. 165, in page 55, line 19, after ' this ', insert Part of this '.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 70

AUTHENTICATION OF LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 166, in page 55, line 23, after ' this ', insert ' Part of this '.

No. 167, in page 55, line 25, at end add of the council'.—[Mr. Snape.]

Clause 71

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendments made: No. 168, in page 55, line 33, leave out fom beginning to end of line 34.

No. 169, in page 55, line 36, leave out ' a district' and insert 'the'.

No. 170, in page 55, line 38, at end insert—
'"controlled district" means any area for which this Part of this Act is in force by virtue of a resolution passed by a district council under section (Application of Part II) of this Act;'

No. 171, in page 55, line 40, at end insert—
the district", in relation to a district council in whose area the provision of this Part of this Act are in force, means—

(a) if those provisions are in force throughout the area of the council, that area; and 
(b) if those provisions are in force for part only of the area of the council, that part of that area;'.

No. 172, in page 56, line 10, leave out from '1847' to end of line.

No. 173, in page 56, line 12, leave out 'district' and insert 'controlled district in question'.

No. 174, in page 56, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 15.

No. 175, in page 56, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 33.

No. 176, in page 56, line 34, leave out from 'device' to second 'for' in line 35.

No. 177, in page 56, line 43, at end insert—
'(1A) In this Part of this Act references to a licence, in connection with a controlled district, are references to a licence issued by the council whose area consists of or includes that district, and "licence" shall be construed accordingly'.

No. 178, in page 57, line 2, after 'this' insert 'Part of this'.—[Mr. Shape.]

Clause 72

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 179, in page 57, line 25, at end insert—
'(2A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, before he makes an order in pursuance of the preceding subsection amending or repeal-

ing any provision of a local Act, to consult each local authority which he considers would be affected by the amendment or repeal of that provision'.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Clause 74

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 180, in page 57, line 37, after 'Act', insert ',except Part II'—[Mr. Snape.]

Schedule 2

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendments made: No. 181, in page 62, line 55, at end insert—
'1974 c. 3
The Slaughterhouses Act 1974.
In section 32(2) the entries relating to sections 277 and 286 of the Public Health Act 1936'.

No. 182, in page 63, line 5, column 3, at end add—'Section 126(5)(a)'.—[Mr. Snape.]

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should not like this stage in the passage of the Bill to be concluded without my saying a word of thanks to hon. Members on both sides who contributed to the debates upon it. Their contributions have been most helpful, and I am sure that the Bill is now in far better shape as a consequence of our debates than it was when first introduced. Certainly, the number of amendments and new clauses now incorporated as a result of the initiative of hon. Members is an indication of the spirit which has pervaded our proceedings throughout the passage of the Bill thus far.
In particular, I must comment on the constructive attitude adopted by the Opposition, which has greatly simplified and hastened the progress of the Bill. I am sure that that approach stems from a general recognition on their part as well as ours that the Bill will be of great benefit to local authorities and will result in a significant reduction in the size of the Private Bills which many councils, in particular, are preparing as part of the rationalisation of local law following local government reorganisation. I very much hope that the Bill in its new extended


form will make it unnecessary for some councils to present Private Bills at all.
I add a general word of thanks to all hon. Members, and special gratitude to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) for the constructive attitude which he has shown throughout.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Speed: I am much obliged to the Minister both for his kind remarks and for the amendments which he and his leagues have tabled to meet many of the points which we raised in Committee. As he says, it is now a better Bill. It is certainly a far bigger Bill, thanks to the efforts of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). That may in itself create a record, but we are greatly obliged none the less.
I hope that the Bill will now have a speedy passage through another place and soon reach the statute book so that local authorities may have the help which it will provide.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 17

APPLICATION OF FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF PART II

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 21, line 28, at end insert—
'Provided that such full-time course is in a subject related to agriculture'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): We shall take at the same time Amendment No. 28, in page 21, line 28, at end insert—
'Provided that any period attending such a full-time course in a non-agricultural subject shall not be so treated, unless in the three years ending with the date of death at least twenty four months were spent working in agriculture on the holding or attending a full time course in agriculture'.

Mr. Pym: On this amendment we come back to the question of eligibility and the

conditions to be satisfied in respect of whether a person will be regarded by the tribunal as eligible to be considered as a candidate to take over a holding. The particular aspect of eligibility here involved is that of full-time courses at a university, college or other establishment of further education.
During the discussions which took place before the Bill had its Second Reading, it was clearly laid down in the paper circulated by the Minister that this training would have to be of an agricultural nature, and I think that even those who disagreed with the principle of the Bill thought that, if there was to be a condition of this kind, it was appropriate that education for people in agriculture should be included—in other words, that part of the five years which they would have to devote to work in agriculture could or should include time spent at an establishment of further education. In Committee, several amendments were put down, and one of them was accepted. However, the result is that as the Bill now stands the eligibility clause, to call it such, permits the inclusion of further education in any course in any subject whatsoever, whether related to agriculture or not, and a great many interested people in the industry as well as many hon. Members believe that that goes too wide.
In reply to the debate in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
…one could have instances where the son could well want to take a wider training which would be helpful and relevant to his future farming career"—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 25th March 1976; c. 970.]
The hon. Gentleman then went on to refer to business management or one of the basic agricultural sciences.
Widening it to that extent is logical, and I think that there is much sense in it, since to restrict such a course solely to an agricultural course at an agricultural college might in some cases be too narrow, and there is no reason why a science or subject related to agriculture could not be included. But that is not what is in the Bill, and the purpose of Amendment No. 50 is to insert in the eligibility conditions words which will relate the course to agriculture.
Having drafted the amendment last week and having thought about it further, I admit that it may be thought


difficult to define what "related to agriculture" means. However, if the principle and spirit of the amendment are acceptable to the Government, I am sure that it will be possible for those geniuses, the parliamentary draftsmen, to produce a definition which will cover the sense of the amendment and the sense of what the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee.
Amendment No. 28 is, as it were, an alternative to No. 50 if the House were to decide otherwise or the Government were not prepared to accept that the subject to be studied should be "related to agriculture". In that case, we say that there must be something further in the Bill to connect the aspiring applicant, if I may so call him, to agriculture more closely than the Bill does as it stands.
Under the Bill as drafted, a young man could, after leaving school, spend a couple of years on the holding tenanted by his mother or father, spend three years studying a subject unrelated to agriculture, then do any job he likes for a further two years and yet still be regarded as eligible. The clause is too wide.
The purpose of Amendment No. 28 is to lay down a condition for the three years ending with the date of the death of the tenant that the applicant should have spent at least 24 months working in agriculture on the holding or attending a course in agriculture. The amendment is designed to avoid the position where the so-called eligible person has had nothing to do with agriculture for five out of the preceding seven years. The situation that I have described will not arise frequently but it could arise under the Bill, which goes too far from that which was originally envisaged. I hope that, on further reflection, the Government will feel that it is right, more accurately to define and more closely to constrain the provisions so that the difficulties that I have described will not arise.

The Parliamentary Secretary, to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): In the clause as originally drafted the formal training had to be in agriculture but after a full discussion in Committee an amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) to remove the restriction was agreed to on

Division. This has the effect, which we believe to be desirable, of widening the kind of further education which an applicant could undergo without becoming ineligible. The present proposal by hon. Members is to require that the applicant should have spent at least two of the three years ending with the date of the tenant's death working in agriculture or attending a full-time course in agriculture.
This amendment would effectively rule out the son or daughter who worked on the farm for the two years and then went on to take a full-time course in a nonagricultural subject and whose father died before he could return to work on the farm. It would also rule out the son who, in the five years up to his father's death, worked on the holding for two years—one before and one after a three-year university course, unless this were in an agricultural subject.
On the other hand, if the son did his formal course first and then completed two years' work on the farm before his father dies, he would satisfy the eligibility test. So, under the amendment, his eligibility would depend on the order in which he takes his studies and puts in the practical work on the farm.
The excessive importance which would therefore be attached to the sequence of studies in relation to actual agricultural work is unjustified and illogical. It introduces considerable complexity into a test which surely ought to be simple and straightforward.
8.15 p.m.
I turn to Amendment No. 50. The question whether the agricultural restriction on this concession is necessary was the subject of debate in Standing Committee which took up almost the whole of one morning. No one can complain after this evening, therefore, that is has not been given a generous airing or that the decision was finally taken without due consideration.
An applicant has to pass through two selection processes on his way to obtaining a direction from the Agricultural Land Tribunal. The first process applies to the coarse sieve. It checks the credentials of an applicant and satisfies the Agricultural Land Tribunal that he is indeed a close relative as defined, that he has established a link with the holding,


and that he is not occupying a commercial farm elsewhere. He is then allowed to move on to the much finer sieve of the selection process, where the tribunal will satisfy itself that he is in all respects suitable to become a tenant of the holding.
This is a very important matter, not only for the applicant but for the landlord. The tribunal will be expected to carry out this duty with great attention and care, and I have every confidence that it will. The duty may well require a final task in the selection process—that of choosing between suitable applicants.
If the fine sieve is there and is being applied with attention and care, I see no harm in widening the mesh of the original sieve in the way we have done by the original amendment.
I do not want to go into a detailed argument as to the merits and demerits of various degree courses, other than to refer to the speech last Thursday by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) who said that the three-year course might have been spent reading Arabic studies. Bearing in mind the second sieve that I have already talked about, does this matter? The applicant may still impress the Agricultural Land Tribunal with his agricultural knowledge and experience and his general outlook sufficiently for the Tribunal to be satisfied that he is suitable to take over the tenancy.
I was pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has to some extent moved towards us. He was opposed to any modification of the original Bill and we are glad that he has acknowledged that a degree in business studies or economics should not be regarded as totally unsuitable and that we should not base eligibility on that. Someone who has studied economics or attended a course in business studies should not be ruled out as he would have been originally.

The right hon. Member for Cambridge-shire was fair to suggest that the phrase "related to agriculture" might be open to widely differing interpretations. On balance it is sensible to leave the Bill as amended. That will mean that although he could have done any course, that the applicant must have worked on the farm and have a tie with it. Our decision in Committee was right. The Agricultural Land Tribunal will decide whether the applicant has the appropriate agricultural experience and expertise and whether he is a suitable person to succeed. While acknowledging the points made by the right hon. Member for Cambridge-shire, we have decided that the right decision is to stand by the Bill as amended. I cannot therefore accept either of the two amendments.

Mr. Pym: I am grateful to the Minister. I think that he acknowledges that we were trying to be fair. Originally we felt that it was better to say that the course must be in agriculture but on reflection we thought that there was scope for easing that condition.
The Minister has not satisfactorily replied to the point that the Bill, as drafted, would allow a person to establish some connection with the holding even if it were too insignificant or small a connection to make it viable. We are putting a heavy responsibility on the tribunal, and it would be better to provide in the Bill for the situation which I described earlier. The Bill should be wider than originally intended but not as wide open as it now is. If the Minister says that he is not prepared to look at the matter again and to table an amendment to this effect in another place, I must ask my hon. Friends to vote on the matter. I hope that the Minister will look at the situation. If he does not, we shall press the issue.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 121, Noes 161.

Division No. 126.]
AYES
[8.20 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Clegg, Walter


Arnold, Tom
Brittan, Leon
Cope, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brotherton, Michael
Cordle, John H.


Awdry, Daniel
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Robert
Buntler, Adam (Bosworth)
Drayson, Burnaby


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Benyon, W.
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Eyre, Reginald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fisher, Sir Nigel






Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Marchant, Spencer
Prior, Rt Hon James


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Forman, Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Luce. Richard
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Fox, Marcus
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McCrindle, Robert
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macfarlane, Neil
St. John-Steves, Norman


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacGregor, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Madel, David
Shepherd, Colin


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Silvester, Fred


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mates, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol
Speed, Keith


Grylls, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hall, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sproat, lain


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hampson, Dr. Keith
Mills, Peter
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Harrison, Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint
Townsend, Cyril D.


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hunt, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walters, Dennis


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Mudd, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Jopling, Michael
Neave, Airey
Wiggin, Jerry


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Nelson, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Jill
Neubert, Michael



Knox, David
Newton, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lane, David
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. John Corrie


Lawson, Nigel
Percival, Ian





NOES


Abse, Leo
Forrester, John
Mellish. Rt Hon Robert


Anderson, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce


Archer, Peter
George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Armstrong, Ernest
Golding, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gould, Bryan
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Bates, Alf
Gourlay, Harry
Oakes, Gordon


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Orbach, Maurice


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
Ovenden, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Boardman, H.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Pavitt, Laurie


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hatton, Frank
Pearl, Rt Hon Fred


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hefter, Eric S.
Penhaligon, David


Buchan, Norman
Hooson, Emyln
Perry, Ernest


Buchanan, Richard
Horam, John
Phipps, Dr Colin


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, William (Rugby)


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Canavan, Dennis
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, in (Brighouse)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Clemitson, Ivor
Janner, Greville
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roper, John


Conlan, Bernard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sandelson, Neville


Cryer, Bob
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Selby, Harry


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lambie, David
Sillars, James


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lipton, Marcus
Small, William


Deakins, Eric
Litterick, Tom
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


Dempsey, James
Luard, Even
Spearing, Nigel


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dormand, J. D.
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Eadie, Alex
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stoddart, David


Edge, Geoff
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Strang, Gavin


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Flannery, Martin
Marks, Kenneth
Tierney, Sydney


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Ford, Ben
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tomlinson, John



Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom







Tuck, Raphael
Wigley, Dafydd
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)



Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, Frank R. (Bury)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Mr. John Ellis and


White, James (Pollok)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. James Hamilton


Whitehead, Phillip
Woodall, Alec



Whitlock, William
Woof, Robert

Question accordingly negatived.

8.30 p.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 22, line 34, leave out 'if they applied' and insert
'without prejudice to subsection (5A) below, if'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 31, 33 and 37.

Mr. Bishop: In Committee various points were raised which required clarification of the succession principle.
The purpose of Amendment No. 37 is to introduce retirement into the family succession scheme.
The effect of the new subsection (5A) will be that the retirement of a tenant in favour of a close relative as defined in Clause 17(1) which has the agreement of the landlord shall count as a succession for the purpose of the two successions rule. This is an important amendment to the family succession scheme, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) and to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) who suggested this proposal in Committee.
We have already provided in an earlier amendment that succession by agreement on the death of a tenant should be permitted under the scheme. The present amendment goes further and introduces succession on retirement so that where a tenant, the tenant's close relative as defined in Clause 17(1) and the landlord are all agreed that the tenant should retire on condition that the close relative takes over his holding, such an arrangement should also count as a succession for the purposes of the two succession rule.
The great advantage of this is that it will facilitate the retirement of ageing tenants who are getting past farming without prejudicing the landlord's interest in working through the two successions. It

is clearly in nobody's interest to force a tenant into the situation where he longs to give up the farm but feels that he must keep on until he dies so as not to deprive his son of the opportunity to apply for the tenancy of the holding which gives him his livelihood. Inevitably, his standard of farming must deteriorate and his output of food, which is so important in the national interest, must fall. On the other hand, it would not be right to allow for a succession prior to the death of the tenant without the agreement of all three of the parties concerned. This is an eminently fair and desirable amendment which I am sure will be welcomed by the House.
Amendment No. 37 provides that the retirement of a tenant in favour of a close relative which has the agreement of the landlord shall count as one succession towards the limit of two occasions when the family succession provisions have applied. Amendment No. 29 is therefore a consequential amendment to the other amendment.
On Amendment No. 33, Committee Members will remember that we undertook to table an amendment on Report to provide that only when a tenancy passes from a deceased tenant to a close relative, whether by agreement or as a result of a decision by the Agricultural Land Tribunal, will it count as one succession. The amendment is in two parts and both of them deal with family succession on the death of a tenant. They do not cover succession when a tenant retires, as this is the subject of Amendment No. 37.
Sub-paragraph (i) provides that, when the Agricultural Land Tribunal issues a direction under Clause 19 entitling an applicant to a tenancy of the holding, it will count as a succession for the purpose of the two successions rule. I hope hon. Members will agree that this effectively removes the doubts which were expressed in Committee on this point.
The second case which will count as a succession is provided by sub-paragraph (ii). This is where a landlord has granted the tenancy to an eligible person who was


the sole remaining applicant. It has been common practice for landlords, when a tenant farmer dies, to allow the son to take over his father's tenancy. We hope that they will continue to do so, and it is not our intention that they should be in any way disadvantaged through the mechanism of the two successions rule.
I think I should explain that the prospective tenant in this situation will still have to apply to the tribunal, otherwise it will not be possible to ensure that the rights of other eligible applicants are not overridden: for example, by an agreement between the landlord and another close relative. However, unless there are other applicants to be heard, we envisage in these circumstances that once the prospective tenant has established his eligibility, the proceedings before the tribunal can be discontinued.
I hope this amendment will commend itself to the House as a fair way of solving the difficulties in the operation of the two successions rule which were expressed by hon. Members in Committee.
I deal finally with Amendment No. 31. Its purpose is to make it clear by qualifying the word "tenant" that, in the case of a joint tenancy, it is the death of the last surviving joint tenant which would give rise to a succession for the purpose of the two successions rule in paragraph (f). This is a minor drafting amendment to the wording of the two successions rule in paragraph (f). It does not affect the provisions of the scheme in any way but is simply designed to make it clear beyond any doubt that, in the case of a joint tenancy, it is the death of the last surviving joint tenant which would give rise to a succession for the purpose of the two successions rule.

Mr. Michael Jopling: We are grateful to the Minister of State for fulfilling the promise made by the Government in Committee to deal with what basically were two separate points. We believe that the Bill will be better for these four amendments, which can be summed up in general in terms of Amendments Nos. 33 and 37.
Amendment No. 33 deals with the point that the Bill in effect bars voluntary lettings to the sons of tenants. It goes some way towards meeting the objection by making a voluntary letting to the sole or sole remaining applicant count as one

of the two successions. We do not accept this idea of two successions, and I think that we shall be debating that shortly. But the procedure of eliminating applicants until there is one left must first be gone through by the tribunal, and we feel that it is a pity, if the landlord is willing to grant the tenancy to the late tenant's son, that the tribunal should have to go through all this rigmarole.
That brings me back to the point which was made in Committee when the Opposition moved an amendment saying that, where there were a number of suitable and eligible applicants, the landlord should at least have the right to choose the one whom he preferred. I do not think that that is unreasonable. However, we debated it at some length in Committee.
Amendment No. 37 enables the landlord to agree to the retirement of a tenant so that a close relative, who is described in Clause 17, can succeed him and, in spite of the agreement between the, landlord and the tenant's family, this would count as one of the two successions under the Bill because, as the Minister of State implied, no landlord would conceivably agree, if he wanted possession of the farm, to a son having the tenancy and certainly no tenant would agree to retire voluntarily in these circumstances.
There would have been a full stop in the proceedings unless the amendment had been introduced. What is proposed is a reasonable solution. But it would still be open to a tenant to hold on during old age until his death. We have said to the Government that it would have been better if something had been written into the Bill to provide a positive incentive for an elderly tenant to retire voluntarily. However, the amendments go some way towards dealing with our points. They improve the Bill, and we are grateful to the Government for a small mercy.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West): I thank the Government for introducing retirement as one of the situations in which succession should take place. However, I must confess to having vast suspicions of the formulation of the proposal, partly because it has been so heartily welcomed by the Opposition,


who have been enthusiastically against the propositions in the clauses.
I shall explain the basis of my suspicion, apart from that natural and correct one. If it is said that the matter will be dealt with by agreement with the landlord, that seems to me thoroughly sensible. The difficulty is that the position is now covered by the error in the Bill which provides for two successions. Therefore, by having voluntary retirement and voluntary agreement with the landlord, it becomes subsumed within the two successions rule and becomes one of the two successions. But, by definition, that means that the period during which the succession rule will apply is shortened because he retired before his lifespan. Therefore, it hits into and cuts away from the extensive support for the family over the normal length of the two generations.
I agree that the error is caused by the two successions rule. It would have been difficult to have said "This shall not count as a succession", because the landlord would not agree. The other side of the penny, however, is that the tenant is now unlikely to seek voluntary retirement—a voluntary single succession. He would rather hang on and let the descendant be the effective tenant while he remained the titular tenant. Both Front Benches argued that we wanted to avoid that and that in the interests of better farming the change should take place as quickly as possible. The argument is loaded on the side of the tenant deliberately staying on until his death.
Therefore, the situation should be rectified. If that cannot be done here, it should be done in another place. It makes the argument irrefutable for introducing an amendment to change the two successions to four successions, or the length of time for the two successions. With the help which the Government have given in accepting the principle, they have shown the nonsense of the two successions qualification. I hope that they will reconsider this matter.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: This is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of attending a debate on the Bill. There has already been an accretion of old lace round this new principle of the new hereditary

class. My only criticism of Amendment No. 37 is perhaps pedantic and legalistic.
My objection is that a sentence of 140 words, no less, conflicts totally with the unanimous opinion of this House, expressed in the debate on the Renton Report, that, particularly in matters which affect ordinary people, such as the tenants of agricultural holdings, it is a scandal that they cannot hope to understand provisions in Acts of Parliament. This provision stretches through nine closely printed lines of the English language in one sentence.
Surely it is possible, or at least an ideal, that the parliamentary draftsmen should attempt to explain in understandable language what any putative farm tenant or putative farm landlord would want to know—that is to say, what his rights are and to what extent they are taken away by the new subsection (5A) in Amendment No. 37. There is not a single full stop in the nine lines.
Those who have been attending the proceedings on this Bill throughout may find all this quite simple. They understand what is intended and it appears to be acceptable. But although I have had some experience of the law, I find these 140 words all in one sentence gibberish unless one has very good legal advice at one's elbow. It is quite wrong that people in the position of the sons of farm tenants should not be able, even with a normal education, to grasp what their rights may or may not be by a simple reading of what ought to be a simple measure.
In the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), whose report received such public acclaim in this House not six months ago on the question of the drafting of statutes, all I can say is that this sort of drafting not only flies in the face of his report but is a slap in his face.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: Like the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) I find it difficult to follow the meaning of Amendment No. 37, but, being a trusting soul, I accept the word of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I accept that he has interpreted it correctly.
But I am a little concerned that the amendment declares that transfer before


the death of the tenant should count as one of the transfers. My hon. Friend made it sound attractive, but I think it a pity that the Government have not settled on a later amendment which would have ensured a limited period before the Bill became law.
My hon. Friend the Minister talked about transfer before death and transfer on retirement. I should like to be assured that the retirement could take place whether due to the age of the tenant or to the health of the tenant, or to the fact that he may have suffered an accident, and that, in such circumstances, one of the transfers under the Bill could take place. If we are to count this as one of the transfers, it becomes attractive to the landlord if he can get it out of the way. We have been pressing the Government not to succumb to the temptation simply to have two transfers, although the Opposition simply want one to operate.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) wants to encourage the landlord and the tenant to come to an agreement. It is not difficult to encourage the settlement if the landlord so wishes—all he needs to do to the ageing tenant is to offer him accommodation and a nice pension for life, and I am sure that the tenant will be willing to move and to allow his next of kin or relative to take over the farm. This would be fairly easy. In addition this transfer should not count as one of the two transfers to add to the encouragement.
One thing must not occur: the tenant, if he is ageing, must not be forced out. Nothing must happen to give the landlord powers to force a tenant to retire against his will. I hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that such circumstances will not arise.

Mr. W. Benyon: I welcome these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 37, which is a response to the undertaking given by the Under-Secretary in Committee.
We need not worry too much about the intervention of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), because it does not matter whether a successor comes in at death or during a tenant's lifetime. The life of the successor is what matters and this would not be shortening the life of the successor in any way.
However, Amendment No. 37 has missed the point which I brought up in Committee. It is right that the retirement element should be catered for as a voluntary succession, and this should count as one of the two successions, but what happens when the tenant wishes his son to come into the tenancy as a joint tenant? That is a fairly common practice in agriculture. A father likes to have his son in partnership with him and they go on together until the father wishes to fade out of the picture. This is not catered for in Amendment No. 37 and it should be looked at.
If the Minister decides that what I am asking for is justified, perhaps he could bring forward an appropriate amendment in another place. Apart from that, I welcome the amendment wholeheartedly.

Dr. Colin Phipps: The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) pointed out the difficulties in the number of words in the sentence. That does not surprise me. I was under the impression that sentences of this kind were designed to be understood not by those affected by them but by hon. and learned Gentlemen for the benefit of other hon. and learned Gentlemen in the courts.
The amendments affect the principle of the Bill as discussed in Committee. It is not true, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) just alleged, that this would not affect the length of tenancies. The Bill as it stands says that such tenancies can be passed on to a near relative. It might be a grandson or some other kind of relative. It does not follow that a tenancy is passed on from father to son at any particular period. The next inheritor can be a grandson and the life of the tenancy in such a case could be very much extended. It is a recognition by the Government of what is a perfectly proper point. If one is to have any kind of restriction on the number of successive tenancies, quite clearly the passage of a tenancy within a lifetime, inter vivos, has to be counted as one succession. Otherwise succession of tenancies could go on ad infinitum with a living tenant passing it on to another living tenant. My hon. Friends have argued in favour of just such a situation but that is not what the Government are trying to do.
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is well taken. It will inhibit the willingness of a sitting tenant to pass the tenancy on during his life to his successor. If he knows that that is to count as one of the passages of the tenancy, he is much more likely to cling on in order to pass it to a grandson or great nephew so as to extend the period of succession for his family for as long as possible. He will want to skip a generation.

Mr. Benyon: That is stretching it a bit far. The man we are talking about is aged about 60 and therefore it will be obvious who the successor will be, whether it is the son, a grandson or a great nephew. I was therefore right. This move does not alter the length of the succession.

Dr. Phipps: The hon. Member is on exactly the point that I am making. When the man reaches the age of 60 and appreciates that his choice is to pass the tenancy on to his son, thereby immediately effecting a succession, or hanging on to it for as long as he can and passing it on to his grandson, thereby skipping a generation, the tendency on the part of the tenant would be to do the latter. Certainly if I were in the position of advising such a tenant, I should advise him to skip a generation. Therefore this recognition by the Government that such a transfer counts as one of the two successions shows even more strongly the need for a wider definition to cover successions.
I understand that the Government are unwilling to accept Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 which we shall be debating subsequently. I hope that in the short period which will elapse between a possible vote on Amendment No. 49 and votes on Amendments Nos. 30, 35 and 36 they will carefully consider the point and accept that if a succession is to be counted when it is a voluntary inter vivos succession it is even more important to have a period during which to allow a number of successions to take place which will prevent the kind of hardship which the Government are so keen to avoid.
There is the question of successive joint tenancies. It seems that, as drafted, the Bill makes it possible to have a succes-

sion of joint tenancies whereby one of the tenants might die and his partner would take on another joint tenant, one of those tenants would then die and again a fresh tenant would be taken on. That process would lead to a continuity of succession which was maintained by the fact that there was always one tenant alive. I am not sure whether that situation is covered by the Bill, and I am somewhat concerned about it.

Mr. Bishop: I appreciate the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As they have indicated, the amendments were tabled in order to take account of the views which were put forward. I am glad of the general welcome for the fact that Amendment No. 37 will enable retirement to take place not only in the case of an ageing tenant, but in other circumstances where a tenant feels that it would be in his interests and those of agriculture that he should retire.
Although it may be said that a tenant may want to cling on, I am sure that that is not so when he recognises that deterioration in the way in which his farm has been running is bad for him and the industry as a whole. However, the amendment, which requires the consent of all concerned, is a very useful addition to the Bill.
9 p.m.
Regarding Amendment No. 37, the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) says that to go on for nine lines continuously is a process to which he wishes to put a stop. He regrets that this has not come sooner. However, I feel that he will be well aware of the necessities of drafting, and if there is a way in which this can be reduced, I am sure that we shall consider it. I think that I should be right in saying that this form of drafting is necessary to accomplish what we want. What matters is that we get the kind of changes that we need.
With regard to the point made about joint tenancies by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) and one of my lion. Friends, that is something that we should be prepared to look at.
On this set of amendments we are not debating whether to provide for two successions. That comes in a later set of amendments. We are trying to clarify


when a succession takes place. It is in the interests of all concerned that this clarification should take place now.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 22, line 34, leave out 'each of the last two occasions' and insert:
'on the last occasion (except where the applicant was any person specified in paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above, in which case the last two occasions shall apply)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 30, in page 22, line 34, leave 'two' and insert 'four'.

No. 35, in line 38, at end insert:
'and there had elapsed a period of thirty years since the first occasion when there died a tenant'.

No. 36, in line 38, at end insert:
'and there had elapsed a period of sixty years since the first occasion when there died a tenant'.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising this matter, but there was some slight confusion just now. It might be better if Amendment No. 49 were taken on its own and the other three amendments were taken together afterwards. That might be more convenient.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am bound by the selection that has been made by Mr. Speaker. That is the selection that has been made.

Mr. Buchan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will that debar a vote being taken on some of the successive amendments within this group?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the wisest course is for us to see how events develop.

Mr. Jopling: In Committee we had a number of discussions revolving around how many successions the new provisions of the Bill, contained in Part II, should allow to occur. The Opposition have said on many occasions that we believe that the Bill goes too far in certain aspects of these provisions. Our attitude in Committee over Part II was to try to soften the blow which these clauses will

strike at the agricultural industry. During discussions on Part II we voted on a number of matters. I think that we voted on this clause on 16 occasions. However, all were intended to try to soften the blow that we genuinely believe will be damaging to the agricultural industry. I think that Ministers understand that.
This amendment is another attempt to try to persuade the Government that these clauses are unfair in certain ways and that it would be right and wise, and better for the industry, if we were to try to soften the blow that the Bill will cause. The purpose of this amendment is to accept that in certain circumstances there might be two successions, but the intention is to try to restrict the succession to one generation, and one generation only.
When the Minister attended the Committee early in February, and in the debate on the Floor of the House when his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales spoke, both senior Ministers used as the main part of their argument to justify Part II the contention that what they were trying to deal with was the immediate hardship to the successor of the tenant. I believe that we can argue totally justifiably that the effect of these amendments will be to deal with the hardship that might occur to the son or to the next generation of the deceased tenant but not to make provision for the tenant's grandson. That is something which we believe the Minister did not have in mind when he addressed the Committee—or, if he did he did not tell us about it. He did not talk about the position of the grandson. All his remarks were centred on what would befall the son who had worked on the farm and who perhaps had some aspirations and hopes of taking over the tenancy.
Amendment No. 49 seeks to restrict the succession to one generation, and that is what some of the Minister's leagues have produced in the tied cottage legislation which in general deals with only one succession.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: And in the rent Acts.

Mr. Jopling: That is so, and I am coming to that point in a moment. I think that the government have copied


the provisions of paragraph (f) from the rent Acts. They have been saying to the world at large that it is because the rent Acts involved two successions that that provision is included here.
I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is to reply to the debate, hut I am glad that the Minister is present. There is a basic difference between the type of succession under the rent Acts and the type of succession that we are likely to have under the succession clauses in the Bill. Under the rent Acts, when someone dies it is more than likely that the tenancy will pass to the spouse and then to the child, which would be the second generation. I think the life insurance industry will agree that, in general, husbands dies sooner than wives. This is a well-known fact of life. Therefore, under the rent Acts, and when dealing with houses, it is much more likely that the husband will die first and that the first succession will be to the wife. It could, of course, happen the other way round. If the tenancy happens to be in the name of the wife and she dies first, the tenancy passes to the husband, and then the succession goes to the child.
In practice, in most cases under the rent Acts the succession is limited to one generation, although there are two successions, but in the legislation that we are debating it will much more regularly be the fact that the first succession will be to the son rather than to any of the categories mentioned at the beginning of Clause 17—the wife, the husband, the brother or sister. It is much more likely that the succession will pass to the son.
Therefore there is the one generation that we have under the rent Acts in the same way, but under this legislation we are talking of a second succession after that, which means that we are legislating in practice for the grandson. That is quite unnecessary, and I do not believe that it was in the Minister's mind when he proposed this clause. I hope that our amendment will commend itself to the Government, when they have considered it, and I hope that they will accept it.
Under our amendment there would be one succession only, when the tenancy passed to a child or a treated child under paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1). but it would still allow two successions

when the first succession was either the surviving spouse or the brother or sister. Then there could be a second succession maybe to a son or a treated child of the spouse or the brother or sister, which would mean again, the one generation. The last time we debated this point I said that the Government had eroded their position in introducing these clauses.
I turn to Amendment No. 30, in the name of the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan). He argued very strongly in Committee that there should be no limit to the number of successions. I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding his head. We know that that is what he wants because we know that he is no lover of the landlord class. The hon. Lady the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) also nods her head. If she nods it any harder it will fall off. From long experience I know that that is her attitude. If there is anything that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friend can do to clobber the landlords, they will do it.
Let us not be deluded by the amendment in the hon. Gentleman's name. He is trying to extend the number from two successions to four successions. It is a rather weak compromise after his previous attitude of "from here to eternity". We know that that is what he wants, and that he will come along in a year or two trying to increase it from four to six or to eight or even to 25.
The amendments in the names of the hon. Members for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) and Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) have nothing whatever to do with hardship which might be suffered by the children or the survivors of the deceased tenant. The only purpose of these two amendments that I can see, stating a period of years that must have elapsed, is to make sure that the landlord is deprived at least for a minimum period of years, of his own property and the rights of his own property.
I hope very much indeed that the Government will reject those three amendments. We believe that the two successions originally proposed are nearly right, but that it ought to be amended to one succession. We believe that it would be totally wrong for the Government to accept the other three amendments which have been put down by their own Back Benchers. I hope that


the Government will see the force of the argument in support of our amendment and that they will accept it.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: We are still in some confusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should my hon. Friends and I be moving our amendments now or shall we merely be participating in a general discussion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All the amendments are being discussed together. If subsequent amendments are to be moved, they will be moved formally.

Mr. Buchan: Then I shall take part in the general discussion. I do not want to spend too much time on the speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). He returned to his previous position of sitting squarely on the fence, being neither for nor against the landlord and neither for nor against the tenant. As always, he is willing to wound but afraid to strike.
The hon. Member is introducing this complicated amendment in another attempt to whittle down the number of cases to which succession may apply. We have been treated to a lot of rubbish about descent to the grandson. There are no statistics available, and comparisons with the Rent Acts are of no relevance to the problems involved in farming. The hon. Member introduced this irrelevancy because we are back on the Floor of the House and he wants to give a little more weight to the view that the Opposition are on the side of the landlord—though they will not push that view too far.
The hon. Member is trying to whittle down the succession provisions. He accused me of trying to extend them, but the difference between us is that I am unashamed of what I wish to do. I want to extend succession in perpetuity, but that proposal was ruled out in Committee and I cannot propose the same thing again now. Consequently, with my usual infinite moderation, I am seeking merely to double the number of successions. Many of us believe that the provision for two successions is not susceptible to logical analysis. It is a total absurdity and very nearly unconstitutional.
When we pass legislation, we do not do so for one occasion. It will continue.

If we bring in a Bill to give widows a pension, it is not confined to the first generation of widows. If the facts subsequently prove us wrong, we change the law. It is a most curious pinning of the future to introduce this concept of two successions. It is also curious for a British Parliament, which is not bound by its predecessors, to be choosing to confine itself in this way. It is a nonsense because a future measure can change this legislation and, in the meantime, the wording of this Bill will create uncertainty. The proposal is verging on an attack on the normal parliamentary process and is also beginning to be harmful to the landlord-tenant relationship, which should be clearly understood by both parties.
It is also harmful as a means of dealing with injustice. We cannot deal with present injustices or hardships—that requires retrospective legislation—but only with future injustices and hardship. It follows that we must deal with all future injustices and hardships and not say that after two successions, we shall revert to hardship and injustice. We believe that this is ab ititio an absurdity and should go.
Why was this action taken by the Government? It remains a mystery. Though we asked repeatedly, the Government did not give us the reason. They said they had struck the right balance, but there is no balance here. There is the interest of the landlord, who wishes to give the tenancy to whomever he wants, and the interests of the tenant, who wishes it to be given to his son, brother or other successor. There is no balance there. There has to be a judgment, but the judgment does not involve a balance. It requires that the matter be dealt with in two different directions, and that is another absurdity.
The National Farmers' Union looked for some logic. It said that there was a certain illogicality in limiting a scheme to two transfers beyond the existing tenancy. It said that the Country Landowners' Association had strongly argued that a limitation on the number of transfers would encourage landlords voluntarily to grant new tenancies, and the NFU accepted the limitation as it would overcome existing hardship cases and would enable us to see how the scheme works. I accept that there is some sense


in seeing how the scheme operates in practice, but it is not right to say that it will overcome existing hardship cases. It can deal only with future hardship cases. Therefore, the NFU has looked for logic but has failed to find it. We were told that the average tenancy was 50 or 60 years. To the average landlord a period of even 40 years seems like perpetuity. This does not encourage the granting of new tenancies.
We believe that we should try to bring some consistency and continuity into this and that we should not leave it to the vagaries of accidental deaths. Let us write in the provision properly. Then it can be given a fair chance over a period of years, averaging it out over four successions so that there will be a chance of getting some sense into this arrangement.
We were very glad that the Government introduced this principle. They have been criticised for having succumbed to pressures, but we respect any Government who listen to pressures. I am pleased to support a Government who listen to pressures and who, when the pressure is right, say "Yes, we accept it" The great pity is that the Government have succumbed to trying to secure this non-existent balance, spoiling the barrel of honey with a spoonful of pitch. They have written into the centre of the Bill an absurdity. I wish they would either remove it altogether—it can still be done in another place—or else accept one of the three amendments which my hon. Friends and I are proposing in order to bring some sense into the matter and allow the principle of succession and the inheritance of tenancies.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I acquit the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) of doctrinaire Socialism, but I accuse him of doctrinaire feudalism, because the hereditary rights of the tenants were the hallmark of the feudal system of tenure.
The hon. Gentleman says that his amendment and the doctrine for which he stands would make the landlord-tenant relationship clearly understood. But it was clearly understood in the Middle Ages. The tenants in chief, the mesne tenants and the tenants of the mesne tenants had hereditary rights to their holdings, large or small. They clearly

understood that, and the whole of society was frozen in that hereditary posture, with the result that the land was immensely unproductive, and it was not until the fortuitous circumstance of the Black Death, when for the first time there was a market in land, that the land produced anything like what it was capable of producing.
For the hon. Gentleman to say that we should return to a system by which landlord and tenant relations were clearly understood by being frozen, like prawns in aspic, for ever and a day, which is what the hon. Gentleman honestly says he wants, is the most extraordinary feudalistic reaction that I have ever heard and I am amazed that it should be put forward.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not understood it.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I have. My constituents have a saying—"clogs to clogs in three generations". If that is so, if people are frozen for ever in their economic circumstances, when the fourth or fifth generation is reached in performing their function, they are peculiarly bad at it.

Mr. Buchan: Parliament passes legislation. If the legislation is wrong, it should be changed by Parliament. What we should not do is to write in a limitation for that change or to create an automatic change. This is the correct way to pass legislation. We say "This shall be", and if in future we want to change it, we say so.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should pass a Bill which would freeze in one family the feudal tenure for at least four generations, which is over 100 years. It is suggested that it is 200 years, but I should have thought that 100 years was nearer. It would be between 100 and 200 years, but do not let us argue about that. At the speed at which things are going, 100 years is long enough; indeed it is far too long, to freeze a holding in one family and to prevent a new entrant having a go.
I am staggered that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, who is so enlightened and advanced on other matters—he is a spearhead of modern thought—should wish to return to the situation in the era before the Black Death. He has


not understood the genetic opinion of my constituents, who understand the saying "Clogs to clogs in three generations".

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If the phrase "Clogs to clogs in three generations" is applicable to tenant farmers, is it not equally applicable to landowners? What right do landowners have in perpetuity over the ownership of the land?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: None. If they are bad landowners, they will soon go bust. I have discovered from the farms in my constituency, which are small and by no means prosperous, that there is a considerable market in farms, particularly among freeholders who go bust, because many freeholders find after three generations that the strain is not as strong as it was in the original pioneer and they go through the hoop—and quite right, too.
Not being a believer in the hereditary principle unless it is supported by merit rather than the constrictions of the law, as the thon. Member for Renfrewshire, West proposes, I am all in favour of the career being open to talents, and the farms being open to talents, and the hereditary principle going by the board. That applies not only to farms but to business, industry, commerce, the docks and the dockworkers, and every other form of human activity. If the hon. Gentleman expects the House, in the second half of the twentieth century, to revert to the early Middle Ages on the question of security of tenure, all I can say is that the longer I remain a Member, the more amazed I become at the doctrines of the extreme Left.

Dr. Phipps: I have not heard a better argument for the capital transfer tax put in the House than that put by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). I remember adducing precisely the same arguments in favour of capital transfer tax in a similar debate. If the argument applies to agricultural tenants, to what does it apply in British industry and commerce? The last figures that I saw from the Institute of Directors showed that no less than 60 per cent. of its members were the sons and descendants of other Institute members, either alive or deceased.
9.30 p.m.
I have argued for many years that the real trouble with British industry is

nepotism, and I have never heard such a potent argument against nepotism and in favour of capital transfer tax since I came to this House as that which we have just heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I welcome it immensely. If it in any sense indicates a change of heart and attitude by the Opposition, we shall be delighted.
We have argued in Committee that the principle of two tenancies is not just capable of producing hardship but is unjust. At this stage it is important that those of us who served on the Standing Committee make clear that it was not we who brought forward the concept of hardship. When an amendment was first mooted to have such a succession of tenancies, it was not hardship alone that we were considering: we were considering also justice. "Hardship" was a word introduced by the Front Bench. We have never argued from the point of hardship but from the point of justice.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has pointed out, hardship can equally apply over a succession of two tenancies as it can over a succession of only one, or of three or four. Hardship can happen in any generation, and if we are to legislate we should legislate for hardship in any generation.
A matter of natural justice is involved in the number of tenancies. It is worth our saying that we think that tenants in particular should be protected in this way. It is because we believe that farming is important that we support the people who actually work on the land—those who do the farming. What we are saying is in favour of the farmers. It may be to the detriment of the land owners, but if one has to choose between the farmers, the people who produce from the land, and those who own the land, we on this side will always choose those who do the work on the land. It is not the land which is important, but what is done on it—and that is done by the farmer and the tenant farmer. That is why we are enthusiastic about extending a succession of tenancies to the people who farm the land.
What is the problem of having only two tenancies? By and large, they can be extremely rapid. It is quite possible


that two tenancies can last for 90 years—they might also last for 90 days. One does not know how long two successions are going to take. They can take place very rapidly. I believe that Amendment No. 35 would go some way to solving the problem, but it is subject to the same kind of difficulty that a set number of successions can take place fairly rapidly.
For this reason, I have favoured a particular period of time-30 years. That is about the period of one generation. By and large, it is the length of time one would expect a tenancy to last. Therefore, if we put into the Bill a period of 30 years in which a number of successions could take place, the last succession before the end of the 30 years would then be the last succession if it was more than the two successions allowed in the Bill. That seems to me to be a sensible compromise. It would get over the difficulty that a succession inter vivos is regarded as one succession in the number of successions.
We have to accept that a sensible period of about one generation would cover everyone's problem, and it would not mean too great a burden on the landlord. He should be grateful because he could, after all, have been faced with 90 years, but he would be getting away with 30 years. So I cannot see why he should grumble. I strongly urge this suggestion on the Government. I hope that they will accept it without our having to put it to the vote.

Mr. Roderick: I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) has disappeared from the Chamber. I thought that he came in knowing the importance of the amendment. But I am sure that he is already convinced by my hon. Friend's argument and that he will later support us in the Lobby.
On Second Reading and in Committee we argued about the two transfers. Unfortunately, many people have misinterpreted that as meaning two generations but, of course, it could mean transfers across rather than downwards and transfers could take place in a very short space of time. Ministers have said that the average time involved in two transfers is about 70 years. In Amendment No. 37 I am suggesting the compromise that there

should be a minimum of 60 years from the enactment of the Bill.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to permit us to vote on either Amendment No. 36 or on Amendment No. 35, in which it is suggested that the period should be 30 years. I accept the suggestion that there should be four transfers, which is much the same in principle as two transfers—it is simply half as bad. We want a minimum period and we want to divide the House to ensure that minimum period.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I find the contributions from the Labour side of the House extraordinary. The landlord and tenant system has worked well for hundreds of years and successions have taken place without legislation. Even the National Farmers' Union admits that the number of hardship or difficult cases are few and far between. Dogmatic statements have been made by Labour Members indicating that the situation is highly unsatisfactory and that hundreds if not thousands of people have suffered over the years. That is far from the truth. Perhaps in those contributions we have heard the other side of the Socialist argument.
The Government said that they would introduce the succession clause to remove hardship, and yet the hardship argument hardly came into the case made by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps). I hope that the House will note that. The reasons why the Government brought in the clause are not supported by Labour Members below the Gangway.

Dr. Phipps: It is important for the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) to appreciate that the Government did not introduce the amendment. It was introduced by Back Bench Members who did not table it for the reasons far which the Government later said they would accept it.

Mr. Winterton: I must refer the hon. Member for Dudley, West to the Official Report of the Committee stage, which is clear and explicit. The hon. Member who tabled an amendment in Committee later withdrew it and the Government tabled their own amendment on the grounds that it would relieve hardship.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West said that his hon. Friends, particularly


those below the Gangway, always stood up for the tenant and the farmer. I have had many representations from working farmers in my constituency who strongly support one succession, but not two successions let alone an open-ended situation such as that proposed by Labour Members below the Gangway.
It is important to get the whole matter in perspective. Hardship seems scarcely to have entered into the debate. It is for reasons of hardship that the Government tabled their amendments. I entirely agree that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) may well be the red plague of this House. I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) described him as going back to before the Black Death.
The fact is that this is a hardship situation, and we have fought this whole set of clauses on that basis, wishing to remove hardship but not to inhibit new people from coming into farming to make it remain the best agricultural industry in the Western world.

Mr. Wigley: It is with some trepidation that I rise to take part briefly in the debate, not having been a member of the Standing Committee. In fact, no member of my party was on the Committee, but that is another matter.
I support the amendments of Government Back Benchers. If there is a rapid succession of tenancy, not vertically but horizontally, it is possible that in a very short time there will still be hardship for other people. If the concept of the Government's proposals is valid for one generation, and a son is entitled to follow his father because of the work his father has done on the farm in building it up, is it not an equally valid principle that the son's son should succeed him and so on? I cannot see where that logic fails.
Some Opposition Members have said that people may go from clogs to clogs in three generations, the implication being that there may be poor farming. But if there is poor farming, the matter can go before a tribunal for a breach of the tenancy. The assumption should be that the farming is all right. Provisions in a measure of this sort should be based on the assumption that the farmers will do their work.
The frequency with which the matter arises was mentioned. In my constituency in a period of six to nine months I had five or six separate instances of people suffering from the lack of succession of tenancy. I know of people who have been on their knees on Sundays praying that they will live long enough to see the Bill in force so that they gain the benefit from it. It is as important that we make provision for the grandchildren as for the children. I hope that the amendments will be pressed to a Division and carried.

Mr. Strang: We had a full debate on the matter in Committee, so I shall deal with it only briefly now.
Amendment No. 49 introduces the concept of a maximum of two successions where the first had been to someone of the same generation as the deceased and only one where the succession had been to a younger generation, to reduce the time span that the scheme covers, as the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling.) explained. As I have already said in the Standing Committee, we believe that a maximum of two successions strikes an acceptable compromise between the desire of a deceased tenant's family to continue farming the holding and the equally understandable desire of a landlord to regain possession.
The amendment allows two successions in one set of circumstances—from tenant to widow, followed by the son—and only one in the other set of circumstances—from tenant to son only. But the time span would be the same in either case, so the tenancy would be handed down only through one generation, whereas the Government's scheme, based on the normal run of family succession, is intended to hand down the tenancy through two generations—from the father through the grandchild.
A number of hon. Members raised the question of how long the family's tenancy should last over the generations. We discussed that matter in Committee. It was suggested in the earlier debate that allowing a voluntary transfer from father to son, to provide for retirement, would automatically reduce the duration for which the family occupied the farm. That is not so. The normal course of events will be from father to son and to son again.

Dr. Phipps: What about the grandson?

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Strang: I shall deal with that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) seems to be under the impression that a farm could pass under this legislation from father to grandson. That is not so. If my hon. Friend reads the Bill, he will see that the grandson is not one of the listed relatives. Therefore, in the normal course of events it is from father to son. A few sums will show that the average age of the tenant farmer is about 47. The tenancy will stay in the farm until that farmer's grandson dies. It does not matter at what stage the earlier transfer takes place.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister not agree that in some cases the two successions could be finished within a year?

Mr. Strang: That is certainly possible. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am talking only about the average. In some instances it will be longer, in others less, and there will also be the extraordinary instance that arises. It would be an extreme situation indeed for the whole process to be exhausted in the course of one year.

Dr. Phipps: Then why not cover it?

Mr. Buchan: Surely it is wrong to say that retirement does not affect the situation, because it does. If there are a brother and sister of almost the same age and the existing tenant hangs on, it will encompass that period of time. Therefore, there are situations in which the period will lengthen if the person concerned stays on until death.

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend will recall the point I was making. If we assume in the vast majority of cases that there will be a passing from father to son, which is a fair assumption, in those circumstances it will not shorten the length of period when the family will be able to continue to occupy the farm

but will introduce a time limit of 30 to 60 years, regardless of number. Succession within a family would be one way of operating the scheme. Our scheme, however, is based on family inheritance which is concerned with a specific period of years.

Although I understand the reasons behind the proposals, I believe that they are ill considered because they would be out of place in a scheme in which we seek to maintain a fair balance between the various interests. I understand the strong feelings on this matter. I was happy to have the support on the basic principles of the Bill from the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) speaking as representative of Plaid Cymru. However, I am sorry to learn that he has not thought out the matter carefully. We have tried to strike the right balance in the Bill, and for that reason we are unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 22, line 35, after 'a', insert 'sole (or sole surviving)'.

No. 33, in page 22, line 38, at end insert
there occurred one or other of the following things namely—

(i) a direction under section 19 of this Act was given by the Tribunal in respect of the holding or such an agricultural holding as aforesaid; or
(ii) a tenancy of the holding or of such an agricultural holding as aforesaid was granted by the landlord to a person who, being on that occasion an eligible person, was or had become the sole or sole remaining applicant for such a direction;'—[Mr. Strang.]

Amendment proposed, No. 35, in page 22, line 38, at end insert
'and there had elapsed a period of thirty years since the first occasion when there died a tenant'.—[Dr. Phipps.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 226.

Division No. 127.]
AYES
9.52 p.m.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clemitson, Ivor
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Heffer, Eric S.


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hooson, Emyln


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Forrester, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Edge, Geoff
George, Bruce
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)




Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lambie, David
Richardson, Miss JO
Watkinson, John


Lane, David
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wigley, Dafydd


Lawrence, Ivan
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lipton, Marcus
Rooker, J. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Litterick, Tom
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Woof, Robert


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Selby, Harry
Young, David (Bolton E)


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis



Maynard, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moate, Roger
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Dr. Colin Phipps and


Noble, Mike
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. Bob Cryer.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Millan, Bruce


Adley, Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Anderson, Donald
Grant, John (Islington C)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Archer, Peter
Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter


Armstrong, Ernest
Hall, Sir John
Moate, Roger


Arnold, Tom
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Montgomery, Fergus


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hampson, Dr. Keith
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Awdry, Daniel
Hannam, John
Morgan, Geraint


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hardy, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Benyon, W.
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hatton, Frank
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Boardman, H.
Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Holland, Philip
Neubert, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Horam, John
Newton, Tony


Brittan, Leon
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Oakes, Gordon


Brotherton, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hunt, John
Orbach, Maurice


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Palmer, Arthur


Campbell, Ian
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pavitt, Laurie


Canavan, Dennis
Janner, Greville
Pearl, Rt Hon Fred


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Pendry, Tom


Cartwright, John
John, Brynmor
Penhaligon, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Percival, Ian


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Perry, Ernest


Clarke. Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Clegg, Walter
Jopling, Michael
Price, William (Rugby)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James


Concannon, J. D.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Conlan, Bernard
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cope, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cordle, John H.
Knox, David
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Corrie, John
Lane, David
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cronin, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Le Merchant Spencer
Robinson, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roper, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dempsey, James
Loyden, Eddie
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Sandelson, Neville


Dormand, J. D.
Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shepherd, Colin


Drayson, Burnaby
McCartney, Hugh
Silvester, Fred


Eadie, Alex
McCrindle, Robert
Sinclair, Sir George


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McElhone, Frank
Small, William


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Macfarquhar, Roderick
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Macfarlane, Neil
Snape, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Flannery, Martin
Mackenzie, Gregor
Sproat, lain


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stallard, A. W.


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNamara, Kevin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Ford, Ben
Marks. Kenneth
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Fox, Marcus
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Freeson, Reginald
Mates, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Gilmour, Sir John (East File)
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Golding, John
Meacher, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Gould, Bryan
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Gourley, Harry
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tinn, James







Tomlinson, John
Walters, Dennis
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Torney, Tom
Weatherill, Bernard
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, Cyril D.
Wellbeloved, James
Woodall, Alec


Tuck, Raphael
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Tugendhat, Christopher
White, James (Pollok)



van Straubenzee, W. R.
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Walker. Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Mr. Alf Bates.


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)



Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 17

APPLICATION OF FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF PART II

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 23, line 3, at end insert—
'(5A) If on any occasion prior to the date of death the holding, or an agricultural holding which comprised the whole or a substantial part of the land comprised in the holding, became let under a new tenancy thereof granted by the landlord, with the agreement of the outgoing tenant, to a person who, if the outgoing tenant had died immediately before the grant, would have fallen within paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1) above, that occasion shall for the purposes of paragraph (f) of subsection (5) above be deemed to he an occasion such as is mentioned in that paragraph on which a direction under section 19 of this Act was given by the Tribunal in respect of the holding or such an agricultural holding as aforesaid.
In this subsection "tenant" has the same meaning as in subsection (I) above; and if such a new tenancy was granted as aforesaid for a term commencing later than the date of the grant, the holding in question shall for the purposes of this subsection not be taken to have become let under that tenancy until the commencement of the term.'.—[Mr. Peart.]

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-superMare): I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 23, line 3, at end insert—
'(i) if the holding is incapable, when farmed under reasonably skilled management, of providing full-time employment for more than one man '.
This amendment is self-explanatory, and I see no reason to detain the House long in moving it. In Committee we had a similar debate on the commercial viability of holdings which might be farmed by tenants succeeding under the provisions

of this Part of the Bill, and at that time I spelled out in some detail the man-day requirements for a commercial unit of agricultural land as defined by the Agriculture Act 1967. There seems to be no case whatever for the inheritance provisions to apply where a holding might not be viable. It would be contrary to the philosophy of the Bill, and wholly against not only this legislation but other legislation having to do with amalgamations and the viability of holdings.
The Government have consistently made the point that they introduced the Bill at the request of the National Farmers Union, and, of course, it was incumbent upon the Government to do what the NFU wanted. In this case, I understand that the National Farmers Union wishes to have the amendment incorporated, as does the Country Landowners Association. In view of the unanimity of opposition from the CLA and the NFU, I take it that the Government will accede to this obviously sensible requirement, which will, we hope, promote the interests of British agriculture, not the reverse.

Mr. Bishop: I should not like the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) to think that agreement between the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union on any aspect of these matters was an automatic recipe for acceptance of an amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to restrict the operation of Clause 17 dealing with eligibility of applicants for a tenancy, and the result would be that holdings which do not provide full-time employment for more than one man would be outwith the scope of the family succession scheme.
I understand from discussions which my Department had with representatives of the NFU and the CLA that this amendment—like Amendment (a) to new Clause 1 which was discussed in Committee—is intended possibly to have a restricting effect upon the family succession scheme, and I had understood that the joint view of the NFU and the CLA was that part-time holdings should be excluded from the scheme. If that is still their view, the amendment will not achieve their aim. It will also exclude the holding which will fully provide work for one man, and this is quite undesirable.
I suggest that this is a matter which should have more consideration. I know that the bodies concerned feel very strongly about it, but so do my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite.
Should the Agricultural Land Tribunal have unfettered discretion in this matter of eligibility, or should it be given certain parameters within which to consider only partly eligible applicants? This is clearly a difficult matter and one which should not be resolved in too much of a hurry without considering all the implications. I am willing to consider the matter further in the light of our discussions if the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am very surprised by the Government reply, and I am very surprised also that this amendment has been tabled by the Opposition, because we spoke at length in Committee on this matter.
There are many smallholdings in Wales and other parts of Britain which the farmers' sons have to leave at 18 or 20 because the size of the farm is such that it can support only a part-timer. The farmer's son is unable to derive a livelihood from the smallholding for a period of years.
On the death of his father, that young farmer should have the right to come home and farm that smallholding. If we go against the social and structural balance in these rural areas, depopulation will take place on a very large scale in Mid, North and South Wales. I cannot understand the Opposition tabling such an amendment and I am very sorry and surprised that we have not had a better answer from the Government.

Dr. Phipps: I am pleased to support the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells). We discussed this matter at considerable length in Committee and the point was made very strongly that if the principle of hardship, as advanced by the Government, means anything, it means more in the case of small farms than any others.
In Wales particularly there are many sons who will work as farm labourers for many years because of their expectations of taking over smallholdings owned

by their fathers. I thought that we had agreed completely, and accepted that there was no reason why the general principle should not apply to small as well as large farms and that the hardship involved was greater with small farms. I hope that the Minister will withdraw any suggestion that he will reconsider this part of the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Wigley: I support what has been said about Wales. The amendment relates to "more than one man". It means that one man who is perfectly viable in his own right and is doing a good job would be cut out. I thought that the Bill was meant to cover that sort of case more than any other.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider his response to the amendment and state categorically that it is not his intention to proceed along these lines.

Mr. Roderick: I do not know what possessed my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say that he would take another look at this proposal. I thought that we had cleared up this whole issue. I can only invite the Opposition to press the amendment so that we may reject it out of hand.
It is the people who work the one-man farms whom we have been trying to look after. Now it seems that the Minister of State wants to look after the bigger units instead, and that seems contrary to the whole object of the exercise.
There are many sons of tenant farmers who help their fathers but cannot live on the holding because there is insufficient accommodation. They hope that after the farmer has died they will succeed him.
There is no room for two families on many of the farms in Wales. If an amendment along these lines is accepted, the majority of the farms in my part of Mid-Wales would be excluded from the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that he will not look at this amendment again. I cannot see where the opportunity to do so will occur unless it is in the paridse of the country landowners in the other place. I do not wish to have to debate this subject further.

Mr. Buchan: I rise to show the degree of feeling about this topic among hon. Members of all parties. I was astonished to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of


State say that he would consider this matter again. It is not as though the proposal involves the traditional aspect of encouraging a better structure by giving a bronze, silver, or golden handshake. The holding will simply pass into the possession of the landlord.
I see that my right hon. Friend the Minister is here and I hope that he will state from the Dispatch Box that he is not prepared to consider this matter again. If possible, the Conservatives should be shown what we feel about this amendment by being made to press it so that we may vote it down.

Mr. Wiggin: By leave of the House, may I say that this is a complex matter? In view of the Government's obvious commitment to consider all the complexities, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members>: No.

Mr. Bishop: Since the House has not agreed to give the hon. Member leave to withdraw the amendment, and in view of the strong feelings among hon. Members about the subject, I recommend my hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18

RESTRICTION ON OPERATION OF NOTICE TO QUIT GIVEN BY REASON OF DEATH OF TENANT.

Mr. Pym: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 23, line 32, at end insert—

'or
(c) it is determined by the Tribunal that no greater hardship would be suffered by any applicant determined by the Tribunal to be a suitable person to become the tenant of the holding if the notice to quit were to have effect, than would be suffered by the landlord or any close relative or treated child of the landlord, if a directive were made under section 19(5) or (6) of this Act; and for the purposes of this subsection a "close relative or treated child of the landlord "means any person described in paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 17(1) of this Act when the word "landlord" is substituted for the word" deceased "wherever it occurs'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may also discuss Amendment No. 40, in page 23, line 32, at end insert—

'or
(c) it is determined by the Tribunal that no hardship sufficient to justify the making of

a directive under section 19(5) or (6) of this Act would be suffered by any applicant determined by the Tribunal to be a suitable person to become the tenant of the holding if the notice to quit were to have effect'.

Mr. Pym: The amendments deal with an aspect of hardship. One of the basic aspects of this part of the Bill causes us a great deal of anxiety. Amendment No. 40 deals with the point that after the conditions are satisfied under the Bill there is no requirement on behalf of the prospective or successor tenant to show that there may be hardship. We believe that this should be a necessary element in the argument. The only reason given for this legislation is to deal with cases of genuine hardship, and once the tribunal has determined that an applicant is eligible and suitable it must make a direction in his favour unless the landlord proves one of the grounds in Section 25 of the 1948 Act.
Even in that situation, however, the tribunal has a discretion to withhold consent. Nevertheless, in our view the tribunal's job should not be merely to seek who is the most suitable person; it should also be to investigate whether there is a case of real hardship on the part of a suitable and eligible applicant. The effect of Amendment No. 40 would be to direct the tribunal to do just that.
10.15 p.m.
At the time of the discussions before the Bill came before the House, and on Second Reading, I remember very well just how much anxiety there was about the question of relative hardship, and as at present there is no requirement for the prospective successor tenant to prove hardship, Amendment No. 39 deals with the problem of relative hardship as between the tenant's successors and the landlord and his family and possible successors.
I suppose that I ought, in a sense, to declare an interest here, but I do so in both capacities, as tenant and landlord. My hon. Friends and I—and not only Opposition Members—have great anxieties about the treatment that it is proposed to mete out to landlords in this part of the Bill. It seems to us that both sides in any dispute ought to be treated fairly and evenly. I think I am right in saying that in Committee the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes)


supported an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), because he, too, and others in the House, are concerned that the landlord's potential hardship is going unconsidered.
I know that there are hon. Members—this point arose earlier this evening—who would be prepared to admit that they would take almost any weapon to damage the landlord in some capacity or other, but even allowing for the fact that they may take an exceptional point of view, I should have thought that any fair-minded person, wherever he sits in the House, would want to be sure, in a very difficult matter of this kind, that both the families involved should be equally considered.
After all, it may well be that a landlord has only one farm, which is let at present, and when a tenant dies and his family or a member of it comes before a tribunal, there may or may not be hardship. But what about the landlord's situation? He may have been waiting for 10 years or longer to take over the only farm that he has. No one could conceivably deny, on any basis whatsoever, that there would be a hardship to the landlord if he did not take the opportunity of farming that land—granted that he would suffer hardship if he did not do SO.
We are really trying to measure the relative position. In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) talked about dealing with injustices. I should have thought that this aspect of the Bill was creating an injustice. It was the Parliamentary Secretary himself who said in Committee:
What we cannot accept is that the landlord's son will be treated on an equal basis with the son of the tenant.
That seems to be a very strange, unfair and unreasonable attitude to take, because the landlord and the landlord's son or family may be just as much subjected to hardship and problems as is the tenant's potential successor family. I do not say that he is, but he may be. It is a point that I made strongly on Second Reading in relation to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. How can the tribunal acquire the experience and understanding to judge in what would clearly be a difficult situation? I am not saying that it would

happen at all often, but it can and will happen.
As I said on Second Reading, in dealing with the unfairnesses thought to exist in the few cases where aspiring tenants' sons do not take on the tenancy when their fathers die—and the Bill is designed to deal with those hardship cases—we shall create other hardship cases. I say in all seriousness that there will sometimes be hardship cases on the tenant's side, no doubt, but there will also be hardship also on the landlord's side. I should have thought that all hon. Members would be anxious about that. However, the Parliamentary Secretary also said in Committee,
what I undertake to do, is to look at how we can make this 'greater hardship' phrase have greater substance and meaning."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 18th March 1976; c. 889.]
That is exactly the spirit of what I was trying to say on Second Reading.
I do not think that as the Bill is drawn it is fair and just. How can one say that the tenant's family may suffer hardship and that provision must be made for that, but we must not take notice of the landlord's hardship? They will be different sorts of hardship, but in the case that I cited of a landlord who has only one farm, one can imagine that he might have been expecting to take it over and he will suffer hardships if he is not given that opportunity, yet no provision is made for dealing with that. Therefore, this is unjust and unreasonable.
The House is being asked to pass the Bill in order to deal with injustice, and I assert that out of it will come other hardships and other injustices. If they happen to be suffered by landlords, some people may not mind, but an injustice is an injustice wherever it occurs. I think that the House ought to give further consideration to this matter. That is why we have tabled these amendments. I hope very much that the House will feel it is right to give the utmost care and consideration to a genuine, human problem, whichever party suffers it.

Mr. Strang: My Department has already received representations from the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Associations to the effect that if the family succession scheme is intended to deal with cases of hardship which can arise on the death of the tenant


it would seem essential to have a hardship or a greater hardship provision in the legislation.
I am not wholly convinced of the need for such a provision, because the alleviation of hardship is implicit in the scheme as now drafted. The description of an eligible applicant in Clause 17 clearly implies hardship for the tenant's close relatives; and the landlord is able to base his case for the operation of the notice to quit in Clause 20 on, among other things, the greater hardship test currently set out in Section 25(1)(d) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948.
The right hon. Gentleman pushed his case a little too far. I think he will acknowledge that there is provision in the Bill for the position of the landlord, but I go further and say that I recognise that the NFU and the CLA, from their different standpoints, feel strongly about this, and I do not want to appear to be unreasonable. I am willing, therefore, to consider the matter further in consultation with the two organisations.
I hope that with that assurance the right hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Sir Timothy Kitson: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that what he said in Committee at column 889—-

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): That is a debating point.

Sir T. Kitson: I am not making a debating point. It must have been a slip of the tongue when the hon. Gentleman said:
What we cannot accept is that the landlord's son will be treated on an equal basis with the son of the tenant."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C; 18th March 1976, c. 889.]
Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the son of the landlord will be treated on an equal basis with the son of the tenant in cases of hardship? Was that a mistake in Committee?

Mr. Strang: I am not giving that assurance, and I was careful not to give it. I am not retracting what was said in Committee. I have said that I am prepared to look at the question of greater hardship.

Mr. Pym: It would be both wrong and discourteous not to say at once that we are grateful to the Minister for what he said. There is a problem here, and he has recognised it. If he thought there was not a problem he would not pursue the matter any further. His undertaking that he will consult the interested parties—which implies that he will do so with a view, perhaps, to making an amendment in another place—is acceptable to this side of the House, and it almost certainly gives us the opportunity to consider the matter again when the Bill comes back from the other place.
When one has been defeated on so many issues that one regards as important matters of principle and one then gets an offer of this kind, one is grateful for any crumbs. We hope that the discussion to which the hon. Gentleman referred will bear fruit and yield something that will, in the view of us all, be fairer and more just to all the parties concerned in what will occasionally be a difficult dispute.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 23, line 33, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Peart.]

Clause 19

APPLICATIONS FOR TENANCY OF THE HOLDING

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 24, line 2, leave out
(as defined in the preceding section)".—[Mr. Peart.]

Clause 20

OPPORTUNITY FOR LANDLORD TO OBTAIN TRIBUNAL'S CONSENT TO OPERATION OF NOTICE TO QUIT

Mr. Roderick: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 26, line 7, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Amendment No. 44, in line 14, after "1967", insert
excepting those holdings which taken with other rights make up a commercial unit".

Mr. Roderick: The purpose of subsection (3) is to restrict the Bill, in that


the holding would be required to be a commercial one—that is, a viable holding in its own right. The purpose of my amendment is to remove that restriction.
Some of us believe that a non-viable unit, taken with other rights, be they grazing rights or of any other sort, should qualify. A farmer with a few acres and some common grazing rights would require protection under the Bill, because the common grazing rights would be useless to a successor without the holding. There would be nowhere to keep the animals. It might be a holding taken in conjunction with other holdings. It is important in the sense that there may be a series of holdings each from different landlords, therefore we need to protect the farmer in this instance.
I need not spell out the various possibilities under the amendment. I want my hon. Friend to consider very seriously the nature of many holdings in rural Wales and in certain parts of England, where there may be a very few acres farmed by the tenant farmer, rented from a landlord, and where he has various other activities which make up a viable unit in toto. I want to protect such a person. For that reason I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Wigley: I support very strongly the comments made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick). As he knows, and as I am sure the Front Bench Government spokesmen know, the pattern of agriculture in Wales has changed a lot in recent years. There used to be a large number of smallholdings, and a number of them have been brought together as tenancies, with perhaps one farmer having several different tenancies within an area of four or five miles. Each of these, individually, might not be viable, but taken together they make a viable whole which gives a livelihood to the farmer. Once part of a unit is taken away, under the domino theory the size gets smaller and smaller until it collapses. It is important to give protection in that instance, as in the general situation.
For that reason I ask the Government to consider, when there is an opportunity in another place, whether they can find

a suitable formula, if not by these words, to achieve this end.

Mr. Strang: As stated in the Standing Committee on 8th April, subsection (3)(f) is similar to a provision contained in the Scottish legislation. Its purpose is to provide a balancing provision for the landlord, by enabling him to put forward a specific proposal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal that because the holding is below commercial size he intends to amalgamate it with other land within two years of the end of the deceased's tenancy to form a commercial holding. This is a much more positive and powerful ground than the one in current use. I refer, of course, to Section 25(1)(b) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, under which a landlord can serve a notice to quit in the interests of sound estate management, one purpose of which would be the reorganisation of the holdings.
However, I understand that after careful consideration the landlord's representatives believe that the purpose of this provision is likely to be misunderstood by agricultural land tribunals and could prove counter-productive as a result. On reflection, therefore, their initial welcome for the provision has become opposition to it. We have discussed the matter with them in considerable detail but they remain firm in their desire to see it removed from the Bill.
10.30 p.m.
I do not fully accept the CLA's arguments on this and, notwithstanding the fact that we have this alliance between the CLA, my hon. Friend for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), I should prefer to consider the matter further and not to give any commitment, but if my hon. Friend is prepared to ask leave to withdraw his amendment, my officials will continue their discussions with other organisations and we shall be ready to discuss the matter with hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Roderick: On the assurance that another look will be taken at this matter—and we shall remind my hon. Friend in future that we wanted to press the amendment—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25

REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES OF REMUNERATION PAID TO DECEASED EMPLOYEES

Mr. Strang: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 30, line 21 after '12', insert 'and Part II'. This is a drafting amendment, which has become necessary consequent upon the inclusion of the family succession clause in the Bill.
The family succession provisions in Clauses 16 to 22 apply to England and Wales, but not to Scotland. Clause 25(5) requires amendment accordingly.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read:—

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales' Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The hon. Members on the Committee which considered this Bill played a constructive part. It was not possible for me to attend the Committee at all times. There is no need for "Haw-haws" from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). I had to attend important meetings.
When I was in opposition, I was always courteous to Ministers, and always recognised that their first priority was to attend Cabinet meetings, or, as I have been doing in recent weeks, to negotiate in Europe. I did not want to miss the Committee meetings and I am surprised that an Opposition Front Bench spokesman should be so silly as to suggest that.
I pay tribute to both sides of the Committee. My ministerial colleagues played an important part and the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who led for the Opposition, was constructive, as was the Liberals' representative, the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr Howells).
The Bill still has to go to another place. but I hope we are agreed—whatever arguments we may yet have on the Bill—that it is an important measure and that the succession provisions are the most important part.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Jopling: We have come a long way since 1st September, when this Bill was first debated on the Floor of the House, and the measure that has emerged is a very different creature from the one we debated on that occasion. We have a number of reservations on matters that are still to the forefront of our minds and will have implications for the agriculture industry—especially the new clauses added by the Government in mid-stream.
I hope the interruption of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-superMare (Mr. Wiggin) in the Minister's speech will not cause hard feelings or hot tempers. It was not malicious, but we are disappointed that the Minister could not come to the Committee as often as he undoubtedly wished to. He is the senior Minister, and any Opposition naturally want to see the senior Minister as often as possible. He understands this; he has had to put up with it himself. I hope that the Minister appreciates—I believe that his remarks implied this—that we understood why he had to be absent. I trust that he will agree that we did not make ourselves tiresome by insisting that he attended. We tried gently to nudge him once or twice, but he will agree that that is fair enough.
I thank the other two Ministers, who took the brunt of the work in Committee. It would be wrong for me to pretend that we always got the answers we wanted—indeed, we got very few answers that we wanted—but they did their homework reasonably well, although I wish they had learned the lessons of our speeches better than they did.
No doubt we shall consider the Bill again after it has been to another place. Some of the battles enjoined today may well be enjoined again, but time alone will tell. Parts of the Bill will be helpful to the industry, parts will be less helpful, and parts will be positively damaging. However, we must wait to see in what form the Bill emerges from another place. I hope that when it reaches the statute book the parts that do good will outweigh the parts which do bad.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: It would not be right to allow the Bill to pass without thanking my right


hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues for introducing some of the most important parts of it. It has been a good lesson in parliamentary democracy. The Government appreciated points made on Second Reading and incorporated them in the Bill. Having been critical of some of the finer points and details of the new measures, I wish to say how pleased I am that the Bill was introduced, and to thank my right hon. Friend for it.
We have gone through Second Reading 19 sittings in Committee, the Report stage and now the Third Reading, without finding out whether the Opposition support the principle of the Bill. This is unique in my experience. The Opposition deserve congratulation on the most effective and continuous piece of fence-sitting that I have known in my 12 years as a Member.
With those kind words to both sides of the House, I resume my seat.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Being the only Liberal Member and the only Member representing the minority parties who served on the Committee, I should like to say that I am very grateful to the Minister and his colleagues and to the Opposition for listening to me when I expressed my views in Committee. I thoroughly enjoyed the two or three months during which we debated the Bill in Committee. I hope that when the Bill is on the statute book relationships between landlord and tenant will improve and that food production will increase.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DIRECT ELECTIONS TO THE EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The Chair has selected the two amendments tabled to the motion on the subject of direct elections to the European Assembly.

Hon. Members: Object.

It being after Ten o'clock, further Proceeds stood postponed.

HOUSING (BAGWORTH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler: The title of this debate is the
Ministerial rejection of an application for council house building in Bagworth.
That is a rather prosaic title for a debate which is about a matter of life and death. The Minister and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may think that those are strong words, perhaps a little emotional, but I think that they are not.
The debate concerns the future of a coal mining village in Leicestershire—whether it should continue to decline, dying on its feet, or whether, by approving the building of 30 houses, which is the subject of the application, the decline can be halted and hope given for the future. The Minister and his Department have decided to reject the application, or rather—and this gives me a little ground for hope—he has decided to support his regional office. I hope to be able to put to him some new considerations and perhaps different emphases on those he has already in mind.
It is worth looking first at the history of the village. We are not talking of a Victorian upstart, if I can use the expression—a coal mining village with no other background; we are looking at one which goes back at least to the Domesday Book, where the record is of a little village—a community of 35 people—particularly known, apparently, for its wood of a mile long and and half a mile wide. We have there almost a potted history of rural England—of great names, of changes of ownership, of the embattlement and the enclosure of Bagworth Manor, and then its devastation after it was garrisoned by the troops of King Charles I in the Civil War—the losing side.
The modern history of the village starts in 1828, when the present colliery was opened. Gradually over the years the population rose from the then 300 or 400, until it peaked in 1931 at 1,568. That is a significant figure. Since then, the population has been declining. In 1967, it was already reduced to about


1,000; today it is down to 627—a decline of 34 per cent. in eight years. One in three of the people have had to leave because of mining subsidence, one of the difficulties of the village.
The pit is a record pit. In six out of the last 12 months, it has achieved productivity records, coming top of the National Coal Board's list of all pits in the United Kingdom. It is proud of its performance, and the village is proud of it.
The history of the case as far as I am concerned goes back to November 1960, when I had nothing to do with the village. I took over some of the papers from my predecessor, Mr. Woodrow Wyatt. In them there is a striking reference to a letter from the then clerk to the Leicestershire County Council, dated 3rd November 1960. The letter included the statement that:
Nobody wants to kill a community and I know that it is not the intention of the planning authority to kill Bagworth.
If I accused myself of being emotional in my opening words, I think that that phrase from the clerk to the Leicestershire County Council indicates that perhaps I was not exaggerating. I took over the tale from Woodrow Wyatt in 1970. In the previous year he had written to the then Minister of Power, with a copy to the Chairman of the National Coal Board, saying
I am in despair about Bagworth. …".
Attention at that time was centred on a possible development away from the main built-up area. An application for bungalows had been put in in January 1971. I was actively involved. With the encouragement of local councillors and local people, I pursued the then Secretary of State for the Environment to approve the application, but it was turned down on the ground that the project was outside the village limits.
The NCB, which, as always, was cooperating with the local council in an attempt to find a satisfactory site for housing in Bagworth, decided to go ahead and to remove the pillar it had guaranteed under the then chosen site.
The story moves on. There was an even greater determination by the local people to save the village and the "Save Bagworth" campaign began early in the autumn of 1971. That culminated in a meeting in November 1971, which was

attended by many people, including county planning officers, various councillors and officers of the NCB. That was the turning point, because out of that meeting an offer of land was made by the National Coal Board.
I am sure that the Minister will have seen the letter from the then director of the South Midlands area, dated 13th December 1971, which proposed that there was an area of 1½ acres, available now, and stable, a further area available within 12 months of some 14½ acres which would he available after 12 months, and further stable land available in later years. The site proposed was not perfect, because it was overhung by the colliery tip, but because of the continuing need to maintain the life of Bagworth it was decided to proceed. An article in the Coalville Times was headed:
Bagworth—the village no one wants to live in—is back from the dead.
Even then there were problems. Eventually 13 old people's bungalows designed to house people living in houses that were in need of demolition were completed. People were determined to stay in their village, and in 1974 two couples were still living in the last of the remaining houses that were in a bad condition and due for demolition. They were loth to leave their village.
The land to which I referred earlier as being made available was the land on which the bungalows were built. Stage 2 of the development was therefore taken for granted. It was assumed that when the further acres of land mentioned by the director became available the council would build on them. At that time it was intended to build 80 houses. Local inhabitants took it for granted that the plan would go ahead, until the whole matter burst again in the autumn of 1974. It was then suggested that work would not proceed. Another development occurred. The school already hit by subsidence became more damaged and children were being taught in mobile classrooms, whilst another school was also threatened by undermining.
The parent-teacher and friends association became active, the local education authority was brought in, the Bag-worth Action Group was reincarnated, and the Women's Institute wrote to me saying that unless something was done, Bagworth would be non-existent. Local


councillors also played their part. The local education authority understood that the building of the houses would proceed and that there would be parents moving into the village, making more children available for the school. The education authority prudently talked to the National Coal Board and received the same impression that we all had—that the land would not be undermined and that it would be effectively stable. Plans were therefore made and approved for the building of the school on the site that is the subject of this discussion.
The regional office of the Department of the Environment was rightly asking questions, when the application came before it, and answers were given that appeared to me satisfactory in all respects. Then came the shattering blow of the Department's decision and the subsequent approval of that decision by the Minister.
I have deliberately dwelt at length on the history of the matter because this is no fly-by-night exercise—no sudden intention of the council to build council houses on a spot not previously considered. It is not a sudden thought that the village is likely to decline into nothing; it is a matter of the history of Bagworth, which is almost as old as the subsidence damage from which the village suffers.
I understand the Department's case to rest on three main points—the unsatisfactory location of the site, high site development costs, and the tentative proposals for new workings by the NCB with the likely subsidence effects.
I shall deal with the third point first. I think that there has been considerable misunderstanding about the question whether the site is stable. When I look back through the files, I find time and again letters that all have the same assumption. There are letters from the then clerk to the rural district council and from the then Minister for Local Government and Development in 1972, records of the talks I had with the planning officer of the Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council in November 1974, and letters from the director of education, who also had the same understanding about stability.
Yet the local Press suggested that the reason for the Department's turning the

application down was the likely damage from mining subsidence. Therefore, the most relevant letter that I must draw to the Minister's attention—though I again suspect that he may well have had a copy prepared for him—is from the present Area Director of the South Midlands Area of the NCB, who sent me a copy of a letter that he wrote to the Chief Executive of the Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, in which he said:
My Board's position has never varied in that ever since the site was offered in December 1971 to the then Market Bosworth Rural District Council we have reiterated our guarantee that no coal would be worked under it. We have, in the past, referred to the slight ground movement likely to result from workings nearby, but we have advised that minor structural precautions, no more in fact than were included in the old people's bungalows built on the adjacent plot, would suffice to combat the predicted slight movement.
He is referring to the position that was confirmed to me in the letter of December 1971, which I have already quoted.
Of course there is a risk of drag from nearby workings, but there will be no under-mining. All the research I have done and all the information I have received lead me to believe that the risk is small.
In regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the site, the area director said:
The site remains the most stable in Bagworth… We would not hesitate to recommend its use for proposed housing development.
At present it is the only site where virtually no subsidence can be guaranteed. It is unsatisfactory in the sense that it lies under the shadow of the spoilheap.
How long will the pit survive? How long will there be mining in the Bagworth area? The NCB cannot be definite, but in the foreseeable future the pit will mine itself out. We can then expect the eyesores that exist in the village to be removed. Certainly the area can be landscaped to make it an attractive feature. One further point is that the site is in the centre of the village.
I believe that the location of the site adjacent to the pithead will prove attractive to the miners working at that famous colliery. Relatively few now live in the village. Others have to travel, and with today's cost of transport I think that many of them would be happy to live closer to their work.
That brings me to the subject of site development costs. The project undoubtedly will cost more; that fact has never been hidden. Structural precautions will have to be undertaken. The building will involve rafts on which the houses can stand in comparative safety. If subsidence occurs, the rafts can be jacked up to bring the building back into equilibrium. This method has been used in the village before, and, indeed, it is in use throughout the country.
It is estimated that this process will cost £1,000 more per house. At present, one hesitates to ask for additional Government expenditure. As a subsidiary argument, I would say that if that cost cannot be afforded now or next year, if we could guarantee building within a period of two years one would accept it—and I believe that the village would, too. However, I wish to press on the Minister that the plans should go ahead now. I do not believe that the cost of £31,000 for site development work is too much to pay for the future of that village.
Mention has been made by the Department of the waiting lists for these houses, and whether they are capable of being let—and, indeed, whether they can survive for the minimum 60-year period. I have no doubt as to the last point. Figures have been presented to the Department showing that there are 20 applicants on the waiting list in Bagworth and 13 in nearby Thornton, and that the borough council waiting list at present extends to a total of over 1,700 names. That figure may be reduced in the present review, but certainly the figure will be well over 1,000. The fact that the present applications are lower than the proposed number of houses is of no significance. If it is thought that houses will not be built, nobody will apply for a house in a village. But I have suggested that the miners at the pit, especially, would wish to live there.
I have answered the points of substance on which the regional office of the Department made its decision, but the main question is still the one that has been proposed throughout: do we have a slow decline, or is there a future for the village?
There is in the village a church, rebuilt about six years ago. The Bishop of Leicester wrote to me:

It would be sad for us if we were left with the church, newly erected, but with no village!
There is a working men's club in Bag-worth, again built to be subsidence-resistant. It would be sad, to echo the bishop's words, to have a working men's club with no workers living in the village. We have a school to accommodate 120 pupils, which is planned and agreed to go on the very site that we are discussing. It would be sad if we had a school and no children.
The fact is that in eight years the village population has declined by one-third. It is an ageing population. Compared with the borough as a whole, there are many more people over the age of 45 and many fewer under the age of 45 than the average.
Those are the statistics. Underneath them there is a strong feeling, and a strong emotion, that only by this decision now can the village be assured of a future. These new houses would allow the village to look ahead with confidence to the end of mining, when a proper community can be planned and developed.

11.2 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I understand the very strong feelings of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler). I might tell him that I was born in a West Durham mining village, and I now represent it. In that village, there has been no building at all since the war. What is more, 200 houses have been bulldozed down. I know something about the community life, and I want to assure him at the beginning of my remarks that it is not the job of my Department, and we have no wish, to destroy community life or to dictate to people where they will live or not live. I appreciate the hon. Member's great concern.
I had intended to say something about the development over the years, but the hon. Gentleman has been very fair and has told the House of the diminishing population and the effect of the pit and so on, on the village itself.
In the few minutes at my disposal, let me turn to the actual site on which the borough council made application to build 30 dwellings. The picture is depressing. The site, which is about three acres, is far from inviting in its.


general appearance. Not to mince words, it is a coal stocking yard covered with 18 inches of fine coal. It has been established that considerable expenditure is required to make it physically possible to put homes on it.
I am not reciting facts and statistics merely for their own sake. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the value of a closely-knit community. But we have to deal with matters as they are. We have to face reality. The site development works—consisting of foul and surface water sewers, access paths, roads and pavements, landscaping, public utilities and land cost—were estimated last October to cost £2,484 per dwelling, and the ad hoc allowances would amount to about £1,371 per dwelling. The land purchase costs represent only £500 per dwelling, but the overall site costs might amount to £5,000 per dwelling. This is partly because a dewatering system would probably have to be installed during construction and a more extensive land drainage system evolved.
It is possible that because of the high water table on parts of the site, piling would be required. In addition, the site inspection report prepared by consultant engineers last year showed that there were tentative proposals for further coal mining under the site in 1978–79, which could result in further subsidence. Even the heroic measures that I have just mentioned—

Mr. Adam Butler: rose—

Mr. Armstrong: I cannot give way at the moment; I want to say something that may be helpful. I shall listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman wants to say to me afterwards.
Even the heroic measures which I have just mentioned would not make the land remotely attractive as a housing site. It would still look out on to a large spoil heap and be flanked on two sides by overgrown waste land. And the site is badly located in relation to such social services as the village has, which are about three quarters of a mile away.
The hon. Gentleman has fairly described the point of view adopted by the Department in discussing this proposal with officials of the Hinckley and Bosworth Council. The view it has taken

is surely a very reasonable one. It has sought to discourage the council from proceeding with its scheme. It asks that development should be deferred until it is quite certain that there will be no further risk of subsidence and until there is clear evidence of the need and demand for houses—particularly bearing in mind that, when the Department last checked, there were only 16 applicants on the housing waiting list for dwellings in Bagworth.
I emphasise that the Department is not seeking to kill Bagworth or to accelerate its decline. We are giving a realistic judgment on the present application. If the housing authority comes forward with a reasonable proposition for a housing site capable of being developed at a sensible cost, and can show that there is a real demand for the houses it proposes to build, development in or near Bagworth is by no means ruled out. Indeed, it would be encouraged.
It is true that the National Coal Board has been active in the neighbourhood and that many sites are affected or may be affected by subsidence, but there must surely be some suitable sites within a few miles if not nearer. If the council cannot acquire land by agreement for housing, it has compulsory purchase powers.
The county planning authority has designated Bagworth in its structure plan as a "restraint" village, where it is necessary to determine whether further limited growth should be allowed and where the scale of any growth will largely be determined by the level of local conditions and services. In the immediate neighbourhood, the structure plan, which now awaits final decision, nominates two villages—namely, Barlestone and Ibstock, both within three miles of Bagworth—as category 1 settlements more suitable for expansion.
To sum up, the particular scheme which the Department has turned down is surely a "non-starter" on any reasonable assessment. We cannot countenance a scheme which so lacks justification on any of the usual criteria for looking at housing plans. But my Department is very ready to consider any other scheme for limited housing in or near Bagworth if the local authority will make out the case for it.
I appreciate the effect on morale and the effect on those who have lived in the


village all their lives and want to continue living in it. We have been as realistic as possible in the light of the facts that have been submitted to us. I hope that what I have said will encourage the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to make any other representations, and if

there are any new circumstances, I assure him that I shall give them careful consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.